BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 24 February 2010, of the independent Inquiry into care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust January 2005 to March 2009.- ( Mr.  Frank  Roy .)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Youth Unemployment

Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on youth unemployment in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Youth unemployment in Scotland has increased in recent months, but since 1997 the number of 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland claiming unemployment benefit is down by 40 per cent. That issue was discussed at the recent jobs summit in Easterhouse.

Andrew Robathan: After 13 years of Labour Government we discovered yesterday that one in six young people in England between the ages of 18 and 24 are not in employment, education or training. What is the figure in Scotland?

Jim Murphy: The figures in Scotland have gone down 40 per cent. In Scotland the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming unemployment benefit for six months or more was 8,800 in January 2010, so hopefully that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I would have thought that it would be a matter of consensus across all the political parties that we have to do more together to challenge youth unemployment, because it dampens expectations among the most idealistic and energetic generation, and has the potential to ruin young lives. However, based on the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clear that he does not understand very much about unemployment among young people in Scotland.

Katy Clark: Youth unemployment is a massive problem in Ayrshire, with North Ayrshire having some of the worst levels of social deprivation in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Ayrshire jobs summit, which is taking place tomorrow, and does he agree that economic growth and job creation are key for the most successful future for Ayrshire?

Jim Murphy: It is very important that we take a team Ayrshire approach to trying to overcome youth unemployment, and not just youth unemployment. We are keen to ensure that those over 50, who have perhaps not experienced unemployment or been in a job centre for a considerable period-or perhaps never in their lives-do not become used to unemployment and do not spend that period in advance of their retirement settling for a life on unemployment benefits. It is therefore essential that we do more together across all the generations, in Ayrshire and across Scotland.

David Mundell: In 2000 the then Secretary of State for Scotland boasted that
	"For the first time in generations, the end of youth unemployment is a real possibility".
	After 10 years of Labour Government youth unemployment has not ended; it has actually shot up by 60 per cent. Last week the Secretary of State said that the onus was on bankers to deal with unemployment. Then he claimed that Scotland's economy had been boosted by the recent snowfall. Has it not occurred to him that youth unemployment in Scotland is high not because there are too many bankers or not enough snow, but because the Government's economic policies are not working?

Jim Murphy: It is a fact-I thought that the hon. Gentleman would share this view-that a minority of bankers in Scotland have a moral responsibility for their actions and the way they behaved in destroying fantastic international banking institutions, the consequences being, in part, a global recession and rises in youth unemployment. However, because of the actions of this Labour Government, 50,000 jobs have been saved in Scotland. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not care about that, because he is so fixated on trying to get only one job, and that is my job, at the next election. The people of Scotland know that. They see through it and they see the Conservative party in Scotland for what it is: less popular today than even in Mrs. Thatcher's time.

David Mundell: I do not think that the Secretary of State should give lectures on people who are seen through. He will acknowledge that a stable and supportive family environment plays a major part in equipping young people with the personal skills needed for employment. Yet Cardinal O'Brien has warned that the Secretary of State's Government are undertaking a
	"systematic and unrelenting attack on family values."
	Last night the Secretary of State was due to say, "When the Cardinal speaks, people listen." The cardinal has spoken. Is the Secretary of State listening?

Jim Murphy: It is right that we focus on how we get through this recession together. We are determined to ensure that we support families, through tax credits and the national minimum wage, for example. It is sobering to reflect on the fact that during the 1980s Tory recession, it took 19 years for the jobs situation to return to pre-recession levels. Nineteen years-nearly two decades-is how long it took Scotland to recover from that recession. The fact is that the Conservative party has not learned the lessons of the 1980s, because it remains committed to cutting tax credits from many families throughout Scotland. It is no wonder that Scotland sees the Tories as a real danger to its well-being.

Gordon Banks: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could comment on the success of the future jobs fund. He will be aware that his ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State visited my constituency recently and saw some of the fruits of the scheme. Is it working in this area?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously in his constituency on the future jobs fund, which is testimony to the way he carries out his politics. He is a fantastic constituency Member of Parliament. We announced 1,300 more jobs in the future jobs fund last week, and there are now 9,000 opportunities in the fund in Scotland. That is the Labour Government subsidising the opportunity for young people and others to have the chance of a job during this recession. The Conservatives are committed to abolishing the future jobs fund, which is 9,000 more reasons in Scotland not to vote for them.

Intellectual Property (Statutory Protection)

Andrew Pelling: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on statutory protection of intellectual property arising in Scotland.

Ann McKechin: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of matters concerning Scotland. My Department recently made two orders under the Scotland Act 1998 relating to intellectual property for the Commonwealth games and the register of tartans.

Andrew Pelling: What will be done to protect the intellectual property rights of the people of Stirling if the excavations at the Dominican friary show that the bones that have been found there are indeed those of Richard II, and to provide Government moneys to support DNA analysis and perhaps to allow for an exhibition before the bones of that English king are returned to this country?

Ann McKechin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with a little advance notice of his supplementary question. It gave me an opportunity to look at the reign of Richard II, which was marked by particular acts of violence. He crushed the peasants' revolt, built up a group of unpopular favourites, arrested, imprisoned and executed the people he worked with, or banished them and confiscated their estates. It sounds a little like a Conservative party selection meeting. More seriously, I am sure that we are all very interested in the results of the archaeological investigation, and that the Scottish Government and the local authority will be more than pleased to promote any find that might be discovered.

Ian Davidson: Is the Minister aware that there is a tremendous amount of intellectual property involved in building aircraft carriers on Clydeside? Is she also aware that, at this very moment, convenors from trade unions from across the United Kingdom are meeting representatives of the Liberal party to try to get them off the fence on the question of whether they are prepared to support the aircraft carriers?

Ann McKechin: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just say to the hon. Lady on the Treasury Bench that I know that her answer will contain a closely argued reference to the importance of statutory protection?

Ann McKechin: Thank you for your guidance on that point, Mr. Speaker.
	My hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter for the aircraft carriers in Glasgow, and he is well aware that the project is important not just for Glasgow but for Scotland and the whole of the UK, and that many people will benefit from it. We should cherish and support the talents and skills of the engineers and workers in our shipyards at all times.

Angus Robertson: Does the Minister agree that it would be naive, misguided and wrong for anyone to claim false ownership, whether in business or in matters of faith?

Ann McKechin: When it comes to intellectual property, we have a good example of the Scottish and UK Governments working together, and we fully support the measures that have been taken on the Commonwealth games order. That has been one of the successes of the devolution settlement, but the hon. Gentleman unfortunately fails to appreciate that because he has only one aim for Scotland, which is to take it out of the United Kingdom and damage it.

Calman Commission

Lindsay Roy: What recent discussions he has had on taking forward the recommendations of the Calman commission; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Murphy: The Government are committed to strengthening the Scottish Parliament and making it more accountable to the public in Scotland. We will bring forward a Bill early in the next Session of Parliament.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Has his commitment to implementing the Calman recommendations diminished in any way following the discussions on them?

Jim Murphy: As I said, it is important that the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be increased, and that there should be an increased sense of accountability to the public in Scotland. There is a weakness in the way in which the architecture of devolution has been designed, in that the Scottish Parliament is largely responsible for spending money but does not take decisions about how large its budget should be or how the money should be raised. That is why it is an important part of the Calman recommendations-the vast majority of which we accept-that a patriotic Parliament should be given not only additional powers but, importantly, new accountability.

Pete Wishart: Only last weekend, we learned of another tragic incident in which a three-year-old boy was shot with an airgun. How many more incidents like that do we have to see before the Secretary of State takes immediate action? The Scottish Government are ready to go, and it is his prevarication that has led to this situation. Will he now get his finger out?

Jim Murphy: It is pretty cheap and nasty-of course, unusually so for the hon. Gentleman-to try to make politics out of an accident involving an airgun. We are determined to act on this under the Calman recommendations, in great contrast to the Scottish National party's plans for a rigged referendum. A decade after legislating to ban foreign donors in British politics, the SNP's referendum would allow money to flow in from all over the world, in a system that is now found only in the Borda counting systems in Nauru and Kiribati. The SNP's plans for a rigged referendum are absolutely and utterly Kiribati.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State is aware of my view that the present White Paper procedure is unnecessary and that we could have a Bill before the House now. However, since we have this period of delay, will he use the time to ensure that when he brings the Bill forward, it will include a provision to end the practice of double jobbing, whereby people can sit in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament, taking two salaries for doing only one job? Surely that has to end.

Jim Murphy: This is an important issue and we are keen to phase it out. The Government are committed to taking a UK approach to this matter, as it affects Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly as well as the Scottish Parliament. I am not that keen to get into the politics of it all, but the issue of whether politicians should have two salaries is important. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. The Government are committed-towards 2011, I think-to phasing out this system of a double mandate and two jobs.

Alistair Carmichael: We can guess why the Secretary of State does not want to get into the politics of it since both Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson are seeking to come here as Labour MPs on a dual mandate. When he says that a UK approach should be taken, he ignores the fact that the other place has already decided to deal with this problem for Northern Ireland. Surely that is the example that we should follow, and double jobbing should end now, not at some future date of his choosing.

Jim Murphy: I do not agree. I think everyone in Scotland knows that there is only one prominent person who is currently double jobbing, but I do not want to make a party political issue of it- [ Interruption. ] Of course, it is the First Minister. The two people whom the hon. Gentleman alludes to are phenomenal campaigners and powerful women who I hope will be elected to the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats suggest that that is a foregone conclusion, and the hon. Gentleman's lack of confidence might encourage me to be arrogant, but I am not going to do that.

Devolution Settlement

Mark Harper: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive under the devolution settlement.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend last met the First Minister on 11 January at the national jobs summit in Glasgow. He also wrote to the First Minister calling on him to delay the referendum Bill and join us in focusing attention on supporting people in Scotland as we move from recession to recovery.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that answer. Is the Minister able to tell us why during the financial crisis, which the Secretary of State pointed out hit Scotland hard because of the impact of the banking crisis, the Prime Minister did not meet the First Minister to discuss these important issues for almost a year?

Ann McKechin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we continually work constructively together with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues, including those around the recession and the banking crisis. There have not only been regular meetings between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, but regular joint ministerial meetings on domestic issues as well as European and financial meetings. The devolution settlement is working well.

Michael Connarty: Surely there can be no more important discussion between the Government here and the Scottish Executive than about the confidence of people in the electoral system that elects the Scottish Parliament, which was set up by this Parliament. It seems to me that if the proposal is to put a confused question in a referendum and to have either what was called the Condorcet system, which was last abandoned 80 years ago in Michigan, or the de Borda system, which is used to elect the two Slovenian ethnic minority members, that must undermine the confidence of the people in the electoral system. Surely the Scottish Executive must be called to account on that question.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the lack of proper priorities on the part of the Scottish Government at this time. Our sole priority should be to tackle the recession and to get people back into work, instead of trying to create yet another quango at considerable public expense for no good purpose whatever and conducting a referendum that no one wants at this time.

David Mundell: More than eight weeks ago, the finance committee of the Scottish Parliament made a perfectly reasonable request for a Treasury Minister to come to Holyrood and explain the implications of the pre-Budget report for Scotland. No reply has yet been received. The Chancellor may well have been distracted by fighting back the forces of hell, while the Secretary of State may have been distracted by appealing to the forces of heaven. Is there any hope that the two of them might now come down to a more earthly plane, show respect to the Scottish Parliament, and grant that request?

Ann McKechin: This Government have paid respect to the Scottish Parliament by setting up and supporting the Calman commission. The hon. Gentleman took part in that process, and will be aware of the commission's recommendations. We have agreed that we are more than happy for the Secretary of State to visit the Scottish Parliament to discuss issues relating to the Queen's Speech and other issues of government, but regrettably the Scottish Government have been completely unpersuaded to join in and become seriously involved in matters of parliamentary protocol.

Economic Situation

David Hamilton: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of business and trade unions on the economic situation in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I hold regular discussions with trade unions and business representatives from across Scotland. As I said earlier, last month I co-hosted a national jobs summit in Easterhouse with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and CBI Scotland.

David Hamilton: Last week, when I addressed a meeting at the Rotary Club of Dalkeith, it became obvious to me that the co-operation that has been delivered locally between employers and trade unions is very important if we are to get through the current crisis. May I invite my right hon. Friend to come to Midlothian, meet employers and trade unions, and help them to agree on measures that will allow them to get through the crisis jointly?

Jim Murphy: I am disappointed to learn that I was not invited to the Dalkeith rotary club event, but I am delighted that it obtained the better speaker in my hon. Friend. Of course I shall be happy to visit his constituency. He has put his finger on something very important: as I have said before, the global importance of the current recession requires a team approach to be taken throughout Scotland by the Labour Government, the SNP Edinburgh Government, business and trade union leaders, so that we can get Scotland through the recession more quickly and more strongly.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too many rather animated private conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

Charles Kennedy: Gaeltec Ltd in Dunvegan on the Isle of Skye faces liquidation at the hands of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs because PAYE and national insurance contributions have not been paid as a result of financial constraints. Will the Secretary of State reassure the business community that liquidating a company over non-payment of £28,000-leading to redundancy payments that would amount to about £120,000, as well as subsequent unemployment and related benefits-would make no sense whatsoever to the public purse, and that he will lobby HMRC and try to make it see sense?

Jim Murphy: I am always happy to listen to the right hon. Gentleman when he argues a constituency case so passionately. I will not become involved in the specific detail of the business relationship between HMRC and that one company, but I think he will be reassured to learn that the business payment scheme set up by HMRC has allowed 17,000 Scottish companies to delay their payment of taxes totalling £300 million. However, I will happily look into the specific matter that he has raised.

Unemployment

Anne McGuire: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on reducing unemployment levels in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: Long-term unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 91 per cent since 1997, but there are still too many people out of work, and we are reforming the welfare state and investing in the jobs of the future.

Anne McGuire: The number of long-term unemployed people in my constituency has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s, and the unemployment rate is half what it was during the 1992 recession. Does my right hon. Friend agree that public investment is essential to sustaining private sector jobs? Will he ensure that the Government reject the flawed economic analysis which calls for an immediate slash and burn of the public investment that is crucial to maintaining many of the families in my constituency who work in the private sector?

Jim Murphy: I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has again argued passionately on behalf of Stirling and the surrounding area, will be reassured by the fact that I agree with what she says, but I know that she will be even more reassured by the fact that the International Monetary Fund agrees with her. During this unprecedentedly severe global recession, it has been necessary for the Government to intervene, such as by supporting the banks, and in particular the Scottish banks, and by supporting people who would otherwise be out of work to stay in work. However, as my right hon. Friend says very clearly, we know that we still have much more work to do to get Scotland through this recession, and we should have no truck with either Conservative plans for immediate cuts or the cloud cuckoo land economics of the Scottish National party.

Rail Services

Malcolm Bruce: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the adequacy of rail services between England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues on a wide range of issues.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that there would be no better way to develop the economies of the north of England and Scotland than to make a commitment to invest in a high-speed rail link, as that would stimulate investment there and ensure that Scotland and the north of England can fully participate in the development of the country? Are the Government committed to that step, and do they understand why the Conservative party is not?

Ann McKechin: The right hon. Gentleman correctly refers to the great possibilities high-speed rail offers to the whole country, including Scotland. This Government are committed to making sure that high-speed rail reaches the northern part of the United Kingdom-as well as the west midlands, where the first phase of the project will take place, and which we will report on later this Spring. The right hon. Gentleman is also right that we require cross-party political consensus, because this project will take several decades to complete. It is very disappointing that the official Opposition reject the opportunity to take part in dialogue now, on an issue that is important both for the future of this country and for reaching our climate change targets.

Job Opportunities

Brian H Donohoe: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the number of job opportunities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Murphy: Despite the global recession, there are 234,000 more people in work today in Scotland than when this Government came to power.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will also want to congratulate both Ryanair on the expansion of its maintenance facility at Prestwick, and the Minister for having the summit tomorrow. However, will he take a look at an issue that is of concern to at least one of my constituents: the whole question of education maintenance allowance, where there is a disparity between Scotland and England? Will he look into that?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must at least make an attempt to contain itself, and I know- [Interruption.] Order. The House will listen to the Secretary of State.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend's question must be a very popular one, Mr. Speaker! Amidst all the hullabaloo and excitement on the Opposition Benches, he asked about the important issue of supporting young people in Scotland through the recession. It is very important that politicians in Scotland do not take their eye off the ball in terms of the recession, but that has sometimes happened in the Scottish Parliament. Some people seem fixated with the constitution, at the expense of dealing with the recession. When we talk about over 230,000 more people being in work in Scotland, that is not just a large figure, but it tells of an enormous number of families whose lives have been transformed. It is the equivalent of the entire population of the city of Aberdeen being in work today who were out of work during the previous Government's time.

Public Expenditure Levels

Peter Bone: If he will hold discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek to reduce the difference in the per capita level of public expenditure between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Jim Murphy: In 2007-08, the total expenditure on services per head in Scotland was £9,032. Scotland and England have seen similar percentage increases over the past decade.

Peter Bone: In Wellingborough, people have £2,199 less public expenditure spent on them than people in the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Is that fair?

Jim Murphy: The fact is that the Barnett formula has survived in various versions for more than a century. It survived 18 years of a Conservative Government. That funding formula has been in place, in whichever form, since 1888. It has been protected and has survived those 18 years of Conservative Government, but it now seems to be under threat from this Conservative Opposition.

Search and Rescue Services

Alan Reid: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on search and rescue services in Scotland.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend has discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

Alan Reid: Privatisation of the search and rescue services has caused great concern in my constituency, particularly given the reported reduction in the number of helicopters from 38 to 24. I hope that the Government have rigorous plans in place to monitor the effectiveness of search and rescue services once they are in the private sector and that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that today.

Ann McKechin: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will certainly be no degradation of the existing service, from which I know his constituents benefit. In particular, I should say that the new helicopters that will be introduced will have more capability and a faster response time, which I am sure will be welcomed.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Jamie Reed: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 February.

Gordon Brown: Before I answer the question, may I pay another tribute to our troops? They are working with incredible bravery, with fortitude and with dedication to defeat those who would bring terrorism to the streets of Britain by denying the terrorists both land and support and by offering the population of Helmand in Afghanistan a more secure and more prosperous future. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the seven soldiers who have lost their lives since the House last met: from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, Lance Corporal Darren Hicks; from 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh; from 6th Battalion The Rifles, attached to 3rd Battalion The Rifles, Rifleman Mark Marshall; from 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, Kingsman Sean Dawson; from 36 Engineer Regiment, the Royal Engineers, Sapper Guy Mellors; from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell; and from 1st Battalion Scots Guards, Lance Sergeant David Walker. These were men of exceptional bravery, of great courage and great skill, whose loss is deeply felt. Each and every one of them was a hero, dedicated to their colleagues and to their mission. We send our profound condolences to their families and loved ones.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jamie Reed: I am sure that everyone in the House will want to associate themselves with the Prime Minister's comments.
	My constituents never shared in the bankers' bonuses yet they paid to bail out the banks. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that they will get their money back, that we will not allow bankers' greed to threaten our core public services and that we will not, ever, squander this investment on a half-baked public share offer?

Gordon Brown: First of all, we have imposed a 50 per cent. national insurance tax on bank bonuses, which has to be paid by everybody who is paying cash bonuses over the course of the next year. We have insisted on the application of the G20 rules, which means that cash bonuses above a certain amount cannot be paid-they can be paid only at a later date. We are also working for a global banking levy; we are in discussions with other countries and making progress on how that could be administered. At the same time, we are determined that the banks pay back every penny that is owed to the British public. That is an essential means by which we reduce the deficit, and any plan to give cut-price shares would mean that the deficit would be higher and the public would be denied the money that they should have returned.

David Cameron: First, may I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the seven servicemen who have been killed in Afghanistan since the last time that we met: Lance Sergeant David Walker; Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell; Sapper Guy Mellors; Kingsman Sean Dawson; Rifleman Mark Marshall; Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh; and Lance Corporal Darren Hicks? We are paying a high price for the operations we are undertaking in Helmand, but it is an essential mission and our forces and their families need to know that they have the support of the whole House and the whole country in the work that they are doing.
	While the report into the Stafford hospital has only just been published, I want to ask a couple of questions before turning to other subjects. Hundreds of people went into that hospital-some with relatively straightforward ailments-and ended up dying because of the way they were mistreated. Talking to the relatives, as many of us in this House have done, is absolutely heartbreaking. Does the Prime Minister understand that these victims will never be content with an inquiry that was conducted in private, behind closed doors and without any public hearings? Does he understand their clamour for a public inquiry?

Gordon Brown: Let me say, first of all, that we understand both the sadness and the sorrow of all the relatives who lost their loved ones in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. We know that every single one of those cases where relatives have doubts or questions are now being investigated individually. I understand that more than 300 cases are being investigated and every one of the families deserves to have the answers that are necessary. That is the first form of inquiry that is being done.
	The second form of inquiry is the Francis inquiry, which, as the Secretary of State for Health will report in a few minutes, will continue its work on the regulation and supervision of foundation hospitals and, in particular, of this hospital. What happened in this hospital was completely unacceptable. What happened was a management failure in the hospital. When it comes to accident and emergency, I am shocked not only to read the stories but to find that where there should have been four consultants, there was only one, and that where there should have been 55 nurses, there were only 37. This is a failure in management that has to be dealt with. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for bringing forward a series of recommendations including a recommendation that where management fails, just as with doctors, we should be able to strike off from a list those managers who are not acceptable to health authorities.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that answer, but is not one of the tragedies of Stafford the fact that people were dying because of bad practice-not just bad management, but bad clinical practice and an over-adherence to processes-year after year. Death rates at the hospital were far too high and were out of line from 2005, yet the Healthcare Commission started investigating only in 2008. Is it not clear that the structure of primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and the Healthcare Commission did not bring this to light early enough? Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a better way of publishing results and patient outcomes in our hospitals and that we need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again?

Gordon Brown: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the action that we have already taken: a new quality test for foundation trusts; a new requirement for approval by the NHS medical director; a Care Quality Commission investigation; reviews are under way; we can remove the chairs of the trusts more easily; and there is already an early-warning system in place. All those things have been done already but, at the same time, the Secretary of State will announce later that there will be an inquiry into mortality ratios and whether that is the best way of judging whether a hospital is successful. There will be proposals about the deauthorisation of foundation trusts and, of course, we know that there are also disciplinary hearings under way. We have done everything we can to ensure that after this was exposed we have not only investigated the individual worries of families who are affected but learned every lesson possible so that it will not happen again. We have a statement this morning from the interim chair of the Care Quality Commission that says:
	"We have no reason to believe that there is another trust in England with problems of the scale and magnitude that existed in Mid Staffordshire".
	I want to reassure people on that and also to reassure them that we are constantly tracking the situation.

David Cameron: Just as we need openness in the health service, we need openness at the heart of Government. After the Chancellor's extraordinary statement last night, the Prime Minister said this morning on GMTV:
	"I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor".
	Will he try to stand up with a straight face and tell us that that is true?

Gordon Brown: Not only is that correct, but this is the nearest that the right hon. Gentleman has ever got to talking about the economy in the past few months.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to talk about the economy, we can talk about- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must calm down. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.

David Cameron: We can talk about the Prime Minister trebling the deficit, about wrecking the pension system, about ruining the tax system and about bringing this country to its knees. Right now, six weeks before an election, with a record Budget deficit, at the end of a long recession, I want to ask why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war with each other. This is what we are told- [ Interruption. ] If they get any closer, they will start kissing. We are told that Damian McBride, Gordon Brown's spin doctor, was "spreading poison against Darling" and that he
	"told every journalist who had access to a pencil that Alistair's interview was a disaster."
	We are also told that there was the most poisonous briefing against him. Last night, the Chancellor said that after he had said what he had said, No. 10 Downing street unleashed "the forces of hell". Why does the Prime Minister think that he said that?

Gordon Brown: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question. I never instructed a briefing against the Chancellor.
	When it comes to the question of the economy, which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, can he and his party now explain why they were for reducing the deficit, then against reducing the deficit and are now for reducing the deficit again? None of his policies stand up, and that is why there is never any substance from the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron: It was this Prime Minister who put character at the heart of the election. It was this Prime Minister who asked to be judged on his moral compass. Why is it that the moral compass always points at someone else rather than at him?
	This is a verbatim, eye-witness account from one of the journalists. Listen to this:
	"Brown's point man...turned to the journalists and started laying in"- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. and right hon. Members do not stop shouting, I may have to ring some sort of helpline myself-or, worse still, suspend the sitting. This sort of noise and ranting makes an extremely bad impression on the British public. I appeal to the House to have some regard for the way in which we are viewed by the electorate. The House will hear the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron: I gather that things have got so bad in Downing street that even the security guards need protection. Let us just keep it simple. Will the Prime Minister get to his feet and tell us that he knew absolutely nothing about the briefing against his Chancellor? Will he, in front of all these people who have worked with him for so long, after 27 ministerial resignations and after three attempts to get rid of him, get to his feet and tell us that he knew nothing about the briefing against the Chancellor?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing very well. He has asked me the same question three times and I have answered it. I would rather be defending my Chancellor than be in his position of having to defend his shadow Chancellor. The truth of the matter is that the Chancellor has been right on every issue of economic policy over the past two years and that the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have been wrong on every issue in the past few years.

David Cameron: If the Chancellor was right, why was the Prime Minister trying to get rid of him? The Prime Minister wants to talk about the economy; let me give him one statistic and see if he will confirm it. Figures out today show that gross domestic product per capita is lower today than when this Government began. Will he confirm that they are the first Government in 40 years to leave this country poorer than when they began?

Gordon Brown: The Chancellor and I can confirm that GDP is higher per head than it was in 1997.  [ Interruption. ] That is the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked and that is the answer he will get. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that not one time does he ask any question about the substance of policy: he gets it wrong every time. People are now taking a hard, long look at the Conservatives and they are now seeing through them

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members want to hear Liz Blackman.

Liz Blackman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, may I add my condolences to those of my right hon. Friend regarding David Greenhalgh, who lived in Ilkeston in Erewash-my constituency-and was a very brave young man? To receive a diagnosis of cancer must be one of the most frightening experiences in anybody's life. Currently, 94.1 per cent. of patients see a cancer specialist within two weeks. May I welcome the Government's intention to build on that incredible progress and to make the two-week goal a legal entitlement, thus further reassuring patients with cancer and their families?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a very keen interest in how we can make progress against cancer in our country. The truth is that if people get early screening and diagnosis, there is a 90 per cent.-plus chance of survival from breast cancer and other forms of cancer such as bowel cancer. That is why we are so keen that everybody who is worried can see a specialist and get a diagnosis as quickly as possible. That is what will save lives.
	Our policy of having a two-week guarantee, now reduced to one week, has massive support throughout the country. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Conservative party is against these guarantees that we give to every patient in the country. If the Opposition want to show their commitment to the NHS, they should support the guarantees for cancer care.

Nicholas Clegg: I would obviously like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of the seven brave soldiers who tragically lost their lives serving so selflessly and professionally in Afghanistan since the House last sat. They are Lance Corporal Darren Hicks, Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh, Rifleman Mark Marshall, Kingsman Sean Dawson, Sapper Guy Mellors, Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell and Lance Sergeant David Walker. We all owe them and their families an eternal debt of gratitude.
	The last time that the Prime Minister wheeled out his slogan "A future fair for all" was back in 2003. Then, just as now, the poorest were paying more of their income in tax than the richest, but there is one big difference-since 2003, the gap between what the poorest and the richest pay has doubled. How can he possibly call that fair?

Gordon Brown: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, he has to include the importance of tax credits. He forgets that 6 million families in this country get child tax credits, that child benefit was worth only £10 when we came to office, and that the child tax credit is worth anything from £30 to £100 for a family of one or two. That is why we have been able to reduce child poverty in this country. Because we support the policy of tax credits, we will continue to reduce child poverty in this country.
	Parties that want to cut child tax credits, as the Conservative party does, will put more children in poverty in this country. That is why we oppose the Opposition's policy.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister reels off his so-called record, but he has asked us to take a second look and what do we find? The 10p tax rate hit hard-up families, and the hike in national insurance hit people who work hard and play by the rules-tax injustice for the many, tax breaks for the few. Given what happened the last time that the Prime Minister promised a future fair for all, is it not the truth that this is not a slogan but a warning?

Gordon Brown: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would do better than that. First, we have been dealing with tax breaks at the top, including removing pension tax reliefs for those who are very wealthy, and I hope that he will continue to support our policy. The Chancellor has signed an agreement with Lichtenstein that will bring £1 billion of money back to this country. As far as helping everybody is concerned, it is our policy of helping the unemployed and helping people out of recession that is making the difference between poverty and people having sufficient to live on. That is why, because of our policies, there are half a million more people in work than was predicted even at the time of the Budget. That is what makes the difference to poverty.

Virendra Sharma: Will the Prime Minister and the whole House join me in condemning the kidnapping and the brutal murder by beheading of two young Sikh men in Pakistan by an extremist Taliban group? Will he share with the House the action that the Government are taking to assist the Pakistan Government in protecting minority groups in Pakistan from the Taliban?

Gordon Brown: The danger posed by the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban, which both work from Pakistan, becomes more and more obvious every day. When my hon. Friend refers to the murders of people in Pakistan by the Pakistan Taliban, he is referring to violent incidents that are happening every day as a result of the efforts of the Taliban. We are working with the Pakistani authorities so that we can make inroads into the Taliban. There has been some success with the leadership of the Afghan Taliban in the past few weeks, but we will continue to work with the Pakistan security authorities and we will continue to say to the Pakistani people, "We will help children with their education. We ask you to work with us so that the madrassahs cannot have an evil influence on the young people of Pakistan."

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Prime Minister will know that Government expenditure on advertising, marketing and self-promotion went up by more than 40 per cent. last year. As it obviously is not working, will he cut it out?

Gordon Brown: We have already announced that we are going to halve the Government advertising budget and the consultancy budget. The right hon. Gentleman should know that.

David Clelland: Is the Prime Minister aware that February was designated by the Office of Fair Trading as scams awareness month? Does the attempt by the Opposition to pose as a party fit for government not qualify as one of the biggest scams in recent history? Will he join me in logging on to the scamnesty website to draw attention to this latest example of a blatant "scameron"?

Gordon Brown: The Opposition are a party led by the airbrush and they are financed from offshore.

David Amess: My constituent, Stephen Oliver, died at the age 30 in tragic and mysterious circumstances late last year. Stephen's family are very disappointed by the Greek authorities' failure properly to investigate his death, and by the British Government's seeming acceptance of the situation. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the case and try to get the answers to the questions raised by the family?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the question. Like him, I am very sorry to hear of the tragic death of Stephen Oliver in October last year and I, too, send my sincere condolences to the Oliver family. I understand that consular staff in London and in Greece are ready to provide advice and assistance to Mr. Oliver's family as appropriate, including advice on how best to seek further information about the circumstances of his death. I will make sure that that is done. I am sure that ministerial colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will look further into any concerns that the hon. Gentleman may have.

Mark Durkan: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he condemns not only the use of false UK passports in a criminal operation, but any act of state-sponsored assassination anywhere? Will he drop the Government's plans to amend the law on universal jurisdiction, which has so far been justified on the basis of the need to protect Israel's right to due diplomatic conduct and to proper inter-governmental engagement-standards for which the Israeli Government showed utter contempt by the disdain with which the Israeli Foreign Minister treated the Foreign Secretary this week?

Gordon Brown: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are questions about the misuse of British passports, they have to be answered. We have set up an investigation, which is ongoing, into the very instance that he raised. I would not draw immediate conclusions without seeing the evidence. It is important to see the evidence before any further conclusions are drawn, but I agree that we do not support state-sponsored terrorism in any country. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the laws on international jurisdiction affect all countries, not just one country.

Stewart Jackson: As has been well chronicled, the Prime Minister had a famously tempestuous relationship with his predecessor, who described him as a "big clunking fist". Did he mean it literally?

Gordon Brown: Once again, the Conservative party cannot raise an issue of policy. Yesterday we had an education statement; on Monday we had a business conference with announcements of new investment; and a Conservative Back Bencher gets up with a planted question from his Front Benchers and cannot ask a question even about his own constituency.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend knows that the whole of Teesside is waiting for news about Corus. That company, whose order book was 80 per cent. full in December, has now been mothballed and 1,700 people have been made unemployed. Will the Prime Minister tell the House this afternoon what his Ministers are doing to secure and help to secure a purchase, and whether it is the case that Tata is unprepared to sell the company and speak to British Ministers?

Gordon Brown: First, I share my hon. Friend's anger about what has happened on Teesside, and the loss of 1,700 jobs in any area is unacceptable. The loss of 1,700 jobs in an area that has depended on that industry for years and had a contract that would have guaranteed future work for many future years is more unacceptable, and we have to look at that very carefully. As I think the House knows, there was a contract involving four companies which would have guaranteed the output of the plant. That contract broke down through the partners in it disagreeing among themselves about the future.
	We are doing everything that we can to find a buyer for the plant. I have personally talked to Mr. Tata and to the chief executive of Corus, and I have met people in the area who are concerned about what is happening to the jobs and the prospects for young people there. As we look for a potential buyer, we have also put £60 million into the Teesside area so that we can create new jobs, new training opportunities for jobs and new developments in the area that will provide jobs in the future. But I share with my hon. Friend my anger at what happened, and I am determined that our Government will do everything that we can to make sure that people who lose jobs get jobs in the future, and, if we can avoid it, that people do not lose jobs at all.

Anne Main: Since 2008 and the introduction of new rules on motorcycling and tests, the number of people taking the test has declined by 62 per cent. and the number of people passing the test has declined by 58 per cent. The motorbiking industry is extremely important in the UK. What will the Prime Minister do to rectify what is obviously a very poor system?

Gordon Brown: I shall take the figures that the hon. Lady has given me and ask the Transport Minister to look into that very matter. It is important that we have a strong motorcycling industry in this country, and it is important that her question about the specifics of the tests be answered.

Derek Wyatt: Kensley Larrier was convicted of rape in 2005, based on DNA held on the national database. Is it not the case that if storage were restricted to three years, he would be walking free?

Gordon Brown: This is a very important issue, and a national debate would help us to resolve these issues. Last year there were 832 matches to the national DNA database, and those were made in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape. That is why the database is supported by the families of victims as essential in protecting the public. So any Conservative party proposal that reduces the DNA register's ability to punish and find those people who are criminals is, I believe, a step backwards for justice in the country. I hope that the Conservative party will think again about a policy that would leave people who are guilty free as a result of our inability to take the action that is necessary.

Richard Benyon: The words of respect that the Prime Minister spoke today about Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell will be echoed in every corner of the west Berkshire community from where he came. Does the Prime Minister agree that nearly everyone in this country supports our troops, but that a sizeable proportion of the population are at least sceptical of our role in Afghanistan? Does he share my feeling that there is a moral imperative on him and his Ministers to articulate and inform people of the value of the work that our troops do there, and of the necessity of stabilising that region?

Gordon Brown: I share the sympathies that the hon. Gentleman expresses to the family of his constituent who tragically lost his life. I share also with the hon. Gentleman the urgency to persuade the country that, first, we are in Afghanistan because there is a threat of terrorism on the streets of Britain. I repeat that the majority of the serious terrorist plots that have been discovered in Britain and would threaten the lives of people in Britain come from the Afghanistan-Pakistan area. In other words, they do not come from plots within Britain or Europe. They are organised from the Afghanistan-Pakistan area, and that is why we are in Afghanistan-to prevent al-Qaeda running Afghanistan through a Government who would be run by the Taliban themselves.
	I say secondly to the hon. Gentleman that we have got to persuade people that we have a purpose for our mission, and that is to train up the Afghan forces. There will be 300,000 Afghan police, security forces or army in 2011; they will be a far greater force in numbers than the coalition forces together. Gradually, the Afghan forces, as in Operation Together, have got to take security control of their country to allow our troops to come home.

Neil Gerrard: People in my constituency want to know what the Government's priorities will be after the election. Surprisingly, fox hunting is not an issue for them, but taxation is. Could the Prime Minister confirm that he will definitely not have as a priority cuts in inheritance tax for the benefit of a small minority of people effectively paid for by everyone else out of their taxes?

Gordon Brown: The Opposition have announced that they wish to cut the child trust fund and cut child tax credit, and they would cut the Sure Start children's centres in our constituencies-and where would the money go? To pay for an inheritance tax cut for only 300,000 people. It does not take much time to leaflet those 300,000 people to tell them that they would be £200,000-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we are clear about the Government's position.

Michael Ancram: Does the Prime Minister agree that renewed acts of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland are not only threats to the peace process but direct attacks on the very communities from which these terrorists come?

Gordon Brown: There are Members here in all parts of the House who are from Northern Ireland or care deeply about Northern Ireland. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that any renewed terrorist attacks are something that we must be vigilant about and take the necessary action to stop. As he knows, large numbers of previously terrorist organisations have decommissioned their weapons and announced that they are ceasing violence. Two organisations have not done that, and pressure must be brought to bear upon them. The way we show terrorist organisations that we will have no truck with their violence is by building up the strength of the political and democratic process in Northern Ireland. That is why I urge all parties-parties in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly-to support the agreement that will mean the devolution of policing and justice and the end to a process of constitutional conflict over many years in Northern Ireland. That would be the biggest signal we could send to anybody who is interested in terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Pound: I enjoy a pint of porter and a game of darts as much as any old Etonian, but there the similarity ends. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to strain every sinew to try to achieve an international agreement on a Robin Hood tax, bearing in mind that we all know who in this House speaks for the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Gordon Brown: I cannot beat the humour which my hon. Friend brings to this occasion. When the Leader of the Opposition is having his next pint of Guinness and playing darts, he might consider this: there is growing support across the world, just as there was growing support to deal with the recession in a way that he would not propose to deal with it, for a global levy that will put the place of financial institutions firmly at a global level and make a contribution to society. That is the way forward-a global levy, a global banking organisation, and global financial institutions working together. I hope that the Opposition can see beyond their antipathy to Europe to support global action.

Mr. Speaker: Statement by the Prime Minister- [ Interruption. ] Order. If hon. Members are leaving, I should be grateful if they would do so quickly and quietly.

Child Migration

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
	Until the late 1960s, successive UK Governments had over a long period of time supported child migration schemes. They involved children as young as three being transported from Britain to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The hope was that those children, who were aged between three and 14, would have the chance to forge a better life overseas, but the schemes proved to be misguided. In too many cases, vulnerable children suffered unrelenting hardship and their families left behind were devastated. They were sent mostly without the consent of their mother or father. They were cruelly lied to and told that they were orphans and that their parents were dead, when in fact they were still alive. Some were separated from their brothers and sisters, never to see one another again. Names and birthdays were deliberately changed so that it would be impossible for families to reunite. Many parents did not know that their children had been sent out of this country.
	The former child migrants say they feel that this practice was less transportation and more deportation-a deportation of innocent young lives. When they arrived overseas, all alone in the world, many of our most vulnerable children endured the harshest of conditions, neglect and abuse in the often cold and brutal institutions that received them. Those children were robbed of their childhood, the most precious years of their life. As people know, the pain of a lost childhood can last a lifetime. Some still bear the marks of abuse; all still live with the consequences of rejection. Their wounds will never fully heal, and for too long the survivors have been all but ignored.
	When I was first made aware of this wholly unacceptable practice, I wrote to the Prime Minister of Australia to urge that together, we do more to acknowledge the experiences of former child migrants and see what we could achieve. It is right that today we recognise the human cost associated with this shameful episode of history and this failure in the first duty of a nation, which is to protect its children.
	Shortly, I shall be meeting a number of former child migrants here in the Palace of Westminster to listen first-hand to their experiences, and as Prime Minister, I will be apologising on behalf of our nation. To all those former child migrants and their families, to those here with us today and those across the world-to each and every one-I say today that we are truly sorry. They were let down. We are sorry that they were allowed to be sent away at the time they were most vulnerable. We are sorry that instead of caring for them, this country turned its back, and we are sorry that the voices of these children were not always heard and their cries for help not always heeded. We are sorry that it has taken so long for this important day to come, and for the full and unconditional apology that is justly deserved to be given.
	I would like to recognise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and of his predecessor the former Member for Wakefield, David Hinchcliffe. For their commitment to this cause, I would also like to praise all past and present members of the Commons Health Committee and the all-party group on child migrants. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Child Migrants Trust and the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, which have campaigned for justice over many years. I know that the House will join me in paying special tribute to Margaret Humphreys, who founded the Child Migrants Trust and has been a constant champion and fighter for child migrants and their families.
	Although we cannot undo the events of the past, we can take action now to support people to regain their true identities and reunite with their families and loved ones, and to go some way to repair the damage that has been inflicted. I can announce today support for former child migrants that includes the establishment of a new £6 million family restoration fund.
	There are many painful memories as a result of the child migration schemes, and for many, today's apology will come too late for them to hear it. We cannot change history, but I believe that by confronting the failings of the past we show that we are determined to do all we can to heal the wounds. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome what the Prime Minister has said and the moving words of the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who spoke last November of
	"the tragedy-the absolute tragedy-of childhoods lost."
	This was something that happened under British Governments of all parties, and the apology made is on behalf of all of us.
	We on the Conservative Benches join the Prime Minister in sending our good wishes to those affected, including those in London today and those attending events in other countries. We join him also in praising campaigners such as Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust, as well as the work of the Health Committee.
	It is hard to believe that this went on for so long that the last children sailed in 1967, after most of us in the House were born. Anyone who studies what happened-it happened systematically and for so long-will be profoundly shocked at the splitting of families, the lies and abuse that took place, the official sanction that made it possible, and as the Prime Minister said, the heartache that it caused.
	In his apology, Kevin Rudd emphasised the projects that the Australian Government are supporting to provide what he described as a solemn reminder of the past. Bearing in mind our very close ties with Australia and the other Commonwealth countries affected, it is important that we do all we can to assist in that work.
	It is right to judge a society on how it cares for its most vulnerable, especially our children, so should not our legacy to future generations be to do all that we can to make sure that the lessons from these appalling events are learnt and applied, so that such terrible mistakes can never happen again?

Gordon Brown: I am sure the whole House would want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his eloquence in stating that there is not just Government support, but all-party support for the action that we are taking today. I believe that these sentiments will be shared in every part of our country.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course, I add my own voice and that of my party to the Prime Minister's apology for Britain's role in the child migrants programme. An apology-we all know this-will never heal the extraordinary pain and hardship that was inflicted on thousands of vulnerable children and their families, but I hope today's apology will go some way to start to atone for Britain's record in this shameful episode in our history.
	I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all involved in recognising the plight of those who suffered, including current and former Members of this House, but especially the Child Migrants Trust and the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, which have done so much to try to heal the pain. I specifically welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that he will establish a family restoration fund-that is very welcome indeed.
	I pay tribute to those child migrants in London today and, of course, those who are not. The suffering that they endured is simply unimaginable; the apology they are now owed is unlimited.

Gordon Brown: The child migrants who are with us today will be pleased to know that every main party-and, I believe, all the parties-in this House are supporting both the apology and the efforts that we are making to deal with some of the problems that they still have by the creation of the new fund. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the eloquence of his tribute to what is being done.

Kevin Barron: On behalf of the Health Committee, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the Government's continuing support for former child migrants? In 1998, when the Committee decided to do the inquiry under the chairmanship of the former Member for Wakefield, David Hinchliffe, two members of the current Committee were involved-the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). Does the Prime Minister agree that it was the independence and resources of that Back-Bench Committee which enabled this dark chapter in the UK's history to come out of the shadows and to make this day possible?

Gordon Brown: I do agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his personal work in making people aware of the problems that still had to be faced and the need for far further action than had been proposed. It was when he first came to me that I realised that the action we were proposing was insufficient to deal with the problem and that we had to work with the Australian Government to do far more. I acknowledge not only his work, but the work of all members of those Health Committees, and, indeed, the general work that Select Committees do to expose problems that need action.

Robert Walter: I was a member of the Health Committee that spent two weeks in 1998 in Australia and New Zealand hearing the life histories of hundreds of former child migrants. I must say that those were two of the most harrowing weeks of my life just hearing their stories.
	The Catholic Church in Australia, some 10 years ago, led the apologies from the receiving agencies, and a number of others have done likewise. The Australian Government issued their apology last year, but I remind the Prime Minister that the report we presented to the House on 30 July 1998 said to the British Government that
	"an apology is in order".
	The apology is therefore long overdue, but none the less, it is very welcome.
	I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Sending agencies in this country were complicit in this trade in children. Has he had discussions with them that they should join him in this apology?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the work that the hon. Gentleman has done and for his visits to Australia, which have helped to make what is happening today possible. I assure him that the reason that the apology has been made now is that we wished to consult the child migrants themselves about the form that the apology should take and how we should go about making it. That is why many child migrants are here in Westminster today, and I and other leaders will speak with them shortly and pass on the apologies of the whole House about what happened in our country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people made many mistakes in the implementation of this policy and in its design. We have to be vigilant to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Frank Dobson: May I join in welcoming the Prime Minister's statement? There have been several calls for public apologies for past events, and this one has the merit of being made to people who are still around to hear the expressions of regret. I am sure that other members of the Health Committee will join me in paying particular tribute to David Hinchliffe, the former Member for Wakefield and former Chair of the Committee. He became almost obsessed by the grotesque injustice of these events and, at one point, persuaded me as Health Secretary to sign over some money to help to fund the Child Migrants Trust so that it was better able to go about its task. I welcome the Prime Minister finding extra funds for the trust and I pay tribute to Margaret Humphreys and others. This is one of the most shameful incidents in modern times in this country, and when people say that we do not have the standards of the past, they should remember the standards of the people who did this sort of thing.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has taken a huge interest in this subject, and I join him in paying tribute to David Hinchliffe. As a Member of Parliament he took this issue up with great vigour, and since ceasing to be a Member he has continued to push for the changes that we are announcing today. The accounts that I have read of what happened to many of the child migrants are very harrowing indeed, and it is a reminder to us that we have to be vigilant and determined to eradicate injustice, wherever it may be found.

Robert Syms: May I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and agree with the comments about David Hinchliffe? More than 10 years ago, I went to Australia and New Zealand and heard the migrants' stories. It was very harrowing and horrible. I also welcome the additional money. The fact that we can now reunite some of the families will make some small amends for the troubles and difficulties that these children faced.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Howard Stoate: I was one of the members of the Health Committee who visited Australia and New Zealand. I have been a GP for many years and I think that I have heard most stories, but never have I heard such harrowing tales of distress and loss as I heard from those brave migrants. I wish to place on record my tribute to those very, very brave people who were able to open their hearts to the Committee. We heard tales that I hope never to have to listen to again of abuse perpetrated by organisations whose job it was to protect children, but clearly failed to do so. I also wish to place on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson). He was the first Secretary of State to take this situation seriously and, as he has already modestly said, to find money to allow some of these migrants to meet their families and pick up some of the threads that they had so cruelly taken away from them.

Gordon Brown: Both colleagues who have just spoken are right. These harrowing experiences about which we have read were the fate of so many children who should never have been sent from this country, who should have known about their true parents, and who should have had proper support and protection. We must never allow it to happen again.

Mark Pritchard: In welcoming the Prime Minister's comments, may I encourage him not to forget a new generation of 65,000 children who reside in child care facilities in the UK, all of whom have huge potential that is so often unrealised? They all have God-given gifts and abilities that this nation needs. Can he reaffirm his commitment to the House to ensure that those children get the best support to realise their full potential?

Gordon Brown: I certainly can.

Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. The first time I came to know of this was a few years ago when I was a Minister and proposals were worked up by officials to reduce some of the funding for these child migrants. Thankfully, we saw that off. At one stage, I had to tell officials that I would resign rather than allow that to happen, so I welcome the extra funding pledged by the Prime Minister. Does he agree that, as long as any of these child migrants are still alive and with us, we must continue to fund and support them?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his personal efforts. Because we have failed in the duty of care for so many years, we have a particular duty of care to the child migrants.

John Hemming: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I must declare an interest as chair of the Justice for Families campaign, which resists injustices against families on the basis of the best interests of the child. The challenge always is that, when people say, "It's better for the child", it is quite difficult to question the injustice. Sadly, many things similar to the child migrant programme, albeit on a smaller scale, continue today, and families are emigrating from this country to escape the family courts. What confidence does the Prime Minister have that a Prime Minister in 20 years will not be making a similar, but smaller scale, apology?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and if he has any evidence of abuse that should be dealt with, he should bring it before us.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Prime Minister will have heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), but even those of us who have not been deeply involved know that this has been a sorry and very sad saga. Will he ensure that the money, which is so appreciated, is found and willingly, usefully and generously disbursed to those who have had so much to bear over all these years?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are disbursing the money as quickly as we can to those in the greatest need, and we are working directly with individual families to ensure that their needs are met.

Shailesh Vara: In order to appreciate the scale of the problem, can the Prime Minister give an indication of the number of children sent abroad, and does he have any idea of the number who might still be alive?

Gordon Brown: This information is being collected over time, so I think I should give a more updated report to the hon. Gentleman at a later date, rather than give him figures that might turn out not to be correct.

Judy Mallaber: My constituent, Pat Hewkin, who sadly died last year, lost her younger brother when she was six when child migrants were sent to Australia. I was honoured to be there when her brother came over for the first time and they were reconciled. I saw the joy, the sadness and the horror of their having to tell their stories, but it was absolutely wonderful to see how they were reconciled and able to meet each other-thanks to the work of the Child Migrants Trust and Margaret Humphreys. Pat was also able to go over and visit him in Australia. I hope, therefore, that the work of the Child Migrants Trust will continue to be supported because to see those families that were split asunder able to meet each other again was a very emotional thing to witness.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done. Amid the tragedies of separation, we can see, in that particular family, the joy also of reconciliation, and we wish to make that possible for many more families.

Andrew Selous: This was a very poignant statement for me, because, at the age of five-in 1967-I travelled to Australia for several months with my mother, who was an Australian citizen, to spend a very happy time with my grandparents. It is truly shocking to think that, at the same time, this country was officially sending children against their will to Australia where they had such a grim time. May I say that sorry is often the hardest word and commend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for what they have said today? It was the right thing.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have got to be prepared to say that this was wrong and completely unjustifiable, and do what we can to repair at least some of the damage done.

Charlotte Atkins: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his apology today and congratulate the Child Migrants Trust? Many of these children not only lost their childhood and education, but worked as virtual slaves in Australia. Today's apology will be a small compensation for that terrible loss and experience. However, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that those surviving child migrants will not have to return cap in hand to the Government in a few years?

Gordon Brown: I hope that we will be able to continue the funding for as long as it is necessary to ensure that what reparation can be made, is made, and what damage can be reversed, is reversed. I know that we are dealing with the individual circumstances and stories of families now in very different positions, but we will do whatever we can to help individual families.

William McCrea: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and would like to associate my colleagues with it. It is a shameful part of our history, and we ought to make the apology with deep humility. Can he assure the House that the Government action of which he is speaking will extend to every part of the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: Yes, I can. I thank the hon. Gentleman, because every party in the House has now associated itself with the apology. I believe that I can now tell the child migrants when I meet them that it is the unanimous wish of the House both to apologise and to set up a new fund to help them.

Mark Durkan: May I commend the Prime Minister's sincere apology and those from other party leaders in the House? They rang so poignantly with the very profound statement from Kevin Rudd last year. The Prime Minister will be aware that it was not just those children who were transported who suffered isolation, abuse and lies; many of their siblings left at home all too often experienced cruel care as well. Recently, many of them have come forward and had difficulty being received and believed. Their difficulty now is believing what they are being told: that there are no records available to settle their concerns, suspicions or beliefs that they have siblings in Australia and elsewhere. Will he ensure that this fund will help to unlock those difficulties that many of those people are now facing?

Gordon Brown: The fund is intended to help those families who were split up as a result of misguided decisions. Obviously, we shall look at what we can do to help reunite brothers and sisters or siblings, and at the same time ensure that they have proper provision for themselves in the future.

Menzies Campbell: Is it not clear, from what the Prime Minister has said, that one of the most reprehensible features of this policy was the systematic deception of children and their parents? Do we need any further indication of just how unreasonable this policy was other than the fact that it had to be cloaked in such deception?

Gordon Brown: First, the deception was unacceptable, but secondly the results of that deception were that parents thought that their children were in this country, when they were not, and children thought that their parents were dead, when they were alive. It is a most cruel deception for children to be made to believe that something that they should know about, or have the chance to know about, could never be told to them. When dates, birthdays and names are changed to conceal the truth, it is completely reprehensible, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his eloquent way. We must make this apology, not just for that reason, but for the other reasons that I have cited.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the independent inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which I am publishing today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
	In July last year, I commissioned Robert Francis QC to conduct this inquiry. I asked him to establish what went wrong at Stafford hospital and why; what lessons can be learned; and what further action is needed to ensure the trust is delivering a sustainably good service to its local population. In particular, I asked his inquiry to focus on listening to patients and their families. I said at the time that the full impact of what happened at Stafford hospital would be understood-particularly in the NHS at local and national level-only when we heard clearly the voices and experiences of those most affected.
	The Francis report fulfils all those aims. I wish to thank Robert Francis for his thorough report, and the painstaking way in which he has conducted this investigation. Over 900 pages and two volumes, his report lays bare a dysfunctional organisation at every level and appalling failures of basic care over the period between 2005 and March 2009. The report confirms the severity of the then Healthcare Commission's assessment of the trust in March 2009. In his covering letter to me with the report, Robert Francis says:
	"The overwhelming number of accounts given by those affected should surely put to rest the views, still harboured by some, that the Healthcare Commission's report painted an unfair picture of how the Trust was performing. There can no longer be any excuse for denying the enormity of what has occurred."
	Let me be clear: the care provided was totally unacceptable and a fundamental breach of the values of the NHS. Since March last year the Government's first priority has been to help the trust to take immediate steps to improve patient safety, care standards and public confidence. Last July a new chair and chief executive were appointed and, with a new board and senior team, they are making progress, as confirmed by the Care Quality Commission's three and six-month reviews. However, as their local hospital hits the news again today, I appreciate that doubts about safety will be in the minds of people in Stafford. In advance of this statement, I therefore asked the Care Quality Commission for its latest assessment of both the Mid Staffs trust and the wider NHS. I will place a copy of its letter in the Library. The Care Quality Commission confirms that the trust is safe to provide services, although further improvements are still needed, and says that it does not believe that there is any other hospital in England with problems on the scale or of the magnitude seen at Mid Staffs.
	There have been many calls for a full public inquiry into events at the trust and the wider regulatory system. When I came into this job I gave those calls very careful consideration. In particular, I spoke to the four Members whose constituencies are served by the trust. It was clear to me that a further process of inquiry was needed to establish the full picture and to help the healing process. However, I had to balance that with not distracting the trust from the overriding need to make immediate improvements in patient care. It was that consideration which led me to establish the inquiry in the form that it has taken, rather than as a full public inquiry. I did not believe that a lengthy, adversarial inquiry would be in the best interests of health care in Staffordshire. The chairman was able to ask me for further powers if he felt they were needed, but he did not do so, and I believe that his report supports the approach that we have taken. He concludes:
	"I am confident that many of the witnesses who have assisted the Inquiry by written or oral evidence would not have done so had the Inquiry been conducted in public."
	More than 900 members of the public and 82 current and former members of staff contacted the inquiry directly or indirectly, and 113 witnesses gave oral evidence. That evidence revealed an organisation with a culture
	"not conducive to providing good care for patients or a supportive working environment for staff".
	The board did not consider patient complaints, clinical governance or quality at its meetings. Meetings were held in private, and Robert Francis describes the organisation as working in isolation from the wider NHS community and as having a closed culture. As he has said today, the board
	"lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care."
	That dysfunctionality extended to the way targets were managed in the trust and the failure to put in place adequate staffing levels to provide safe patient care.
	The management of the trust cut staffing to dangerously low levels, at one point leaving A and E with a third fewer nurses than were needed to provide safe care. A work force review in March 2008 disclosed that the trust needed to increase its nursing establishment by 120 whole-time equivalents. There was an intimidating and bullying management style. Among staff there were failures of professional standards and clinical leadership. Some staff were praised, but the report finds a "lack of compassion" and an "uncaring attitude" among others. Time and again throughout the report, there are unacceptable examples of poor care, neglect and disregard for patients' dignity. At times, as Robert Francis says, that could be described as rudeness, hostility or even abuse.
	The trust has already taken disciplinary action to hold individuals to account. The trust and the professional regulatory bodies, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, are investigating a number of clinical staff potentially implicated by those events. Today I have written to the chairs of both bodies to ask them to consider the report in detail and work with the trust to determine whether further action is needed against any individuals. I have asked for their response by 12 March.
	In total, Robert Francis makes 18 recommendations. Together with the new board of the trust, the Government accept all the recommendations in full. I will take the four recommendations that apply to my Department in turn.
	First, Robert Francis recommends that I consider steps to improve accountability among executive and non-executive directors of trusts. The board that presided over the failings at Mid Staffs has been replaced, and other managerial staff have been suspended. However, it is a long-standing anomaly in the NHS that the robust professional regulatory system for clinicians is not matched by a similar scheme for managers and non-executive directors. We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere. That is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards, so today I am announcing that I will consult on a new system of professional accreditation for senior NHS managers.
	Secondly, Robert Francis asks me to consider asking Monitor to de-authorise Mid Staffs as a foundation trust. The report makes it clear that Mid Staffordshire has not been deserving of the foundation trust status that it has held for the past two years. At the same time as setting up the inquiry, I proposed to create a new power for Monitor to de-authorise foundation trusts, to make it clear that this status has to be continually earned and is not a one-way ticket. That provision was subsequently endorsed by this House. I can tell the House today that I accept Robert Francis's recommendation to consider asking Monitor to de-authorise Mid Staffs. My strong view, in the light of the report and the support that the trust is likely to need in the medium and long term, is that I will ask Monitor to consider de-authorising when the powers come into effect in the coming months. I will therefore ask the CQC, Monitor and others to give me their views of the trust's long-term clinical and financial prospects, and I will consider initiating the process in the light of their responses.
	Thirdly, Robert Francis asks me to review how comparative mortality statistics are compiled, as well as the methodologies that underpin them, to improve public confidence in and understanding of them. One of the principal reasons why the Healthcare Commission launched its review in 2008 was that it was not satisfied with the trust's explanation of its high hospital standardised mortality ratio. The inquiry has consulted a range of experts on the issue, and Robert Francis concludes:
	"it is in my view misleading and a potential misuse of the figures to extrapolate from them a conclusion that any particular number or range of numbers of deaths were caused or contributed to by inadequate care".
	However, as he points out, there is no shared methodology for HSMRs, nor any clear account of how they should be used and interpreted. The result is confusion for patients and the public. I therefore welcome and accept the recommendation to establish an independent working group to examine and report on the methodologies in use. The NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, has already established that group, which includes the key parties involved in developing and using HSMRs, as well as leading academics and others. The group has committed to developing a single HSMR for the NHS.
	Fourthly, the report calls for a further independent examination of all the commissioning, supervisory and regulatory bodies, in relation to their monitoring role at Stafford, with the objective of learning lessons about how failing hospitals are identified. I accept that recommendation, and can tell the House that Robert Francis has agreed to chair the further inquiry. We are publishing draft terms of reference today, and we welcome views on them.
	In addition to accepting all the report's recommendations, there are further steps that I will now take to learn the lessons of this and prevent a repeat. First, let me make clear today to all foundation trust boards my strong presumption that their meetings should be held in public and that governors should have access to all papers in the trust. The decision of the board at Mid Staffs to hold more meetings in private on achieving FT status is a direct contradiction of what this House intended when it passed the original foundation trust legislation.
	Secondly, I am today accepting the National Quality Board's recommendations to improve early warning systems in the NHS, and I am publishing its report today. Thirdly, a group has been established to advise me on updating whistleblowing guidance. Statutory protection for whistleblowers is enshrined in the NHS constitution, but events at Stafford hospital reveal the need to ensure that staff feel able to exercise that right.
	Fourthly, I want to see a much greater focus in the NHS on measuring patient satisfaction and staff satisfaction-key indicators of good quality care. In December, I announced that a growing proportion of a hospital's income will be linked to patient satisfaction, rising to 10 per cent. of its payments over time. Fifthly, I brought forward the new system of provider registration in the NHS to ensure essential levels of safety and quality. The CQC has already announced today its intention to register Mid Staffs, although it will place conditions where further improvement is needed.
	In conclusion, the Francis report delivers a damning verdict on a dysfunctional organisation. It was principally a local failure, but I accept that there are national lessons to be learned-and they will be. Last year, the Prime Minister apologised to the people of Staffordshire. On behalf of the Government and the NHS, I repeat that apology again today. They were badly let down. I pay tribute to the people who had the courage to come forward and tell their stories and to expose the failures of the past, in order that they could protect others in the future. Robert Francis said that many of the patients who gave evidence to the inquiry
	"were motivated because they do care about the hospital, and demonstrated by their actions that they can be a part of mending the fractured confidence."
	That sentiment is shared by all those who came forward, and indeed by the majority of people who complain about the NHS. They do so because they want it to be better. I want their voices to be heard loudly and clearly in this trust, and across the NHS.
	Today, Sir David Nicholson has written to every NHS chief executive and chair, urging them to read this report and to review their standards, governance and performance in the light of it. When the NHS fails-as it did the people of Staffordshire-it is right to confront it with its failings. At times, there is a tendency in the NHS to push complaints away. I believe very strongly that it is only by facing up to failure-and by holding a mirror up to the NHS-that we can ensure that it is a learning organisation and prevent any repeat.
	Since events at Stafford, Lord Darzi's next stage review has established a major drive to build an NHS that places a relentless focus on quality. For the vast majority of patients, the NHS provides a good standard of care. The CQC's latest patient survey showed that 93 per cent. of patients rated their overall care as good or excellent. When things go wrong, however, we must face up to them and do everything in our power to ensure that such events can never happen again. I commend this statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making an oral statement today, and for giving me advance sight of it. I want, once again, to express our deepest sympathies to the patients who suffered and to the relatives who saw them suffer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I have had occasion to talk to those relatives in Stafford, and the stories of their experiences were harrowing. Today's report, the second volume in particular, sets out the most compelling-indeed, horrific-character of many of the sufferings of the patients and their relatives.
	I pay tribute to the work of Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, and to their determination and persistence in holding the hospital trust and the Government to account for their failures in relation to this hospital, and in securing this further investigation. The Secretary of State will recall that, when the Healthcare Commission published its first report, his predecessor instituted an internal Department of Health inquiry under Dr. Colin-Thomé and another under Professor Sir George Alberti. We told the Government then that that would not meet the need of the people of Stafford for a clear investigation in public into what had happened. When the Secretary of State announced this inquiry by Robert Francis, we told him again that it would not achieve that aim. This is the fourth report, and none of them has diminished the need for a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, in which evidence can be taken in public and under oath. We can combat a culture of secrecy and bullying only by ensuring the fullest openness and transparency in any investigation.
	The whole House will, none the less, be grateful to Robert Francis for fulfilling his brief in a thorough and objective manner. We find no fault with his work, but we do object to Ministers setting up report after report with constrained terms of reference that are designed more to focus on local management than to get to the full truth and the full context of the tragedy at Stafford hospital by analysing in addition the failure of national and regional scrutiny and of NHS performance management.
	In my evidence to Robert Francis, I urged him to recommend a further investigation into the role of the external monitoring and performance management agencies, and I am glad that he has taken this advice and made that recommendation today. Such a further investigation is essential, because many of the serious questions that we and the relatives of those who died have been asking the Government for the past year remain unanswered.
	Why did the primary care trust fail to ensure that standards were up to scratch when it commissioned services from the hospital? Why did the strategic health authority, which was charged with performance management of the hospital when it was an NHS trust, fail so abjectly in that task? Why did the Department of Health simply wave through the foundation trust application at the very time that clinical standards were so poor? Why did it take so long for the scrutiny by the inspectorate to establish that the high mortality rates were occurring, and to undertake an investigation into them? What are the problems with national policy and decision making on patient and public involvement that resulted in people failing to listen to patients raising their concerns in Stafford? And what are the problems with the whistleblowing procedures and practices in the national health service that prevented or inhibited front-line staff from speaking out about poor standards of care?
	The Francis report provides a powerful analysis of the impact of the Government's top-down targets on patient care at Stafford hospital. When the scandal was laid bare by the Healthcare Commission last March, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), said that
	"this was not a problem about targets".
	However, the Francis report-on page 165-states:
	"This evidence satisfies me that there was an atmosphere in which front-line staff and managers were led to believe that if the targets were not met they would be in danger of losing their jobs. There was an atmosphere which led to decisions being made under pressure about patients, decisions that had nothing to do with patient welfare. As will be seen, the pressure to meet the waiting target was sometimes detrimental to good care in A&E."
	Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that Ministers were wrong to deny that targets were part of the problem at Stafford, and that they are wrong now to maintain that they are not the issue? Will he therefore move to abolish top-down political targets, so that the NHS can focus on patient safety and quality of care as an absolute priority?
	In this Parliament alone, I have had to stand at this Dispatch Box on four occasions to respond to issues of failing hospitals: Stoke Mandeville in 2006; Maidstone in 2007; Mid Staffordshire last March, and again today; and Basildon and Thurrock in December. Each time, Ministers have insisted that these are isolated cases and blamed local management principally, but the themes have become too frequent and too familiar for this simply to be a coincidence: waiting time targets prioritised over patient care; clinical priorities distorted by Government targets; a focus on financial issues at the expense of patient care; senior management at board and strategic health authority level putting targets and policy processes ahead of a focus on quality care for patients; primary care trusts focused on cost and volume, and not on quality; and front-line staff finding their attempts to voice concerns going unheard or, even worse, suppressed. That is not good enough. We cannot go on like this.
	We must be committed to establishing a full public inquiry into the tragedy at Mid Staffs. It must be an inquiry with a remit broad enough to ensure that no stone remains unturned and no lesson is overlooked. That would restore confidence among the public in and around Stafford. We will learn the lessons across the NHS, and we must do so up to and including the Department of Health. Action must be taken on the results.
	For our part, we would abolish top-down political targets and the pointless bureaucracy that surrounds them. Instead, we would focus relentlessly on the results for patients. We will make patient experience and outcomes central to accountability. We will ensure that the quality imperative drives NHS services so that when complaints are made, the inspectorate receives, understands and acts on them. We will make quality and safety the central drivers of NHS performance and we will see through the changes in leadership, strategy and reform in the NHS that will give the public the confidence that when they go to hospital, they are there to be cared for and to be treated-and never to be harmed.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extremely important and sensitive matter. Nevertheless, both the Secretary of State's statement and the initial response from the shadow Secretary of State have exceeded the time allowed for such exchanges, so I would ask the Secretary of State to provide economical replies and for others to take note in order that we can all make some progress.

Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The shadow Health Secretary began by extending his deepest sympathies to the patients and families affected, and I am sure that that will be echoed across the whole House and across the country. Today is another difficult day for those people, but we hope that this report will allow their voices to be heard at least more clearly than they have been hitherto.
	The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the work of Cure the NHS, which campaigned to have the events at Stafford hospital thoroughly investigated, and I believe that the report published today meets that requirement for a thorough investigation into those events. He asked whether the initial inquiries were internal to the Department of Health and he called for an independent inquiry, but that is the inquiry that I commissioned. As I said in my statement, when I came to this Department, I believed that a further process of independent inquiry was necessary. I commissioned it; I set it up; and I will deal with what it tells me today.
	I do not think it is possible to read the Francis report and conclude that it does not tell the full truth or reveal the whole picture of what happened at the hospital. We now move forward from the inquiry to consider the actions of the regulatory and supervisory bodies. I have made it clear to Robert Francis that, should he need further powers to conduct that part of his work, he can come back to me and I will consider the request.
	I draw the shadow Health Secretary's attention to the draft terms of reference issued today, which state:
	"The Government's presumption is that the inquiry will be held in public, but this decision is a matter for the Chair."
	I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on those draft terms of reference, but I believe that they meet the tests that he put before us a few moments ago.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the PCT, the SHA and the Department of Health. He is quite right to do so: he is quite right to ask questions about those bodies, their role in what happened and why things were not spotted sooner. That is precisely why we are setting up the second stage of the inquiry-so that those searching questions can be asked of those organisations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about targets, suggesting that they were the problem. Let me quote the Francis report:
	"As will be seen, the pressure to meet the waiting target was sometimes detrimental to good care in the organisation. This is inconsistent with the guidance about targets published by the Department of Health. It is vital that this target must not in any way jeopardise the quality of care offered to patients."
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the Francis report in full, as I am sure he will, he will see that the failure of the trust was the implementation of targets within it, and, indeed, the failure to provide adequate staffing levels on the wards to ensure that care could be delivered safely and meet the standards that other trusts around the country are able to meet. That is the conclusion I draw from the inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what steps we can take to ensure that this does not happen elsewhere in the NHS. With an organisation on the scale of the NHS, I am sure that he and I would accept that things will go wrong and problems will occur. The right thing to do is to face up to them and take action to prevent them happening again. In this particular case, I believe that we have faced up to the enormity of what happened at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. It has been laid bare today in a very detailed report of more than 900 pages. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I take my responsibility to act on the report's findings with great seriousness. That is precisely what I will do.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. This is an utterly shocking scandal, which is a stain on the good name of the NHS. It demonstrates again horrifying evidence of patient neglect, which should never feature in the national health service. I welcome the recognition in the statement that there are national lessons to be learned, but the focus of the inquiry was none the less on this particular trust.
	It seems to me that the inquiry was not designed to ensure that the full wider lessons could be learned. It was not designed to hold anyone to account, which it specifically says, as the terms of reference did not permit investigation into the role of any of the external agencies. It was also held in private. The inquiry was not able to consider the reports of any of the individual cases through a separate process because they were not ready in time. The report itself confirms that disappointing numbers of staff came forward to give evidence. That is not good enough. It is not the fault of the inquiry, but the fault of the process created by the Government. The bottom line is that the report will not satisfy the families of those who lost their lives and it will not bring an end to demands for a full public inquiry. I also pay tribute to the work of Julie Bailey and the organisation Cure the NHS.
	Do not the findings reinforce the need to learn wider lessons about the causes of the failures that took place in the hospital: the focus on process at the expense of outcomes; the failure to listen to those who receive care; staff disengaged from the process of management; insufficient attention to the maintenance of professional standards; a weak professional voice in management decisions; abuse of vulnerable elderly people; and a lack of transparency? The key point is that none of those findings can be said to be unique to this particular trust. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) highlighted other failing hospitals that the House has debated.
	There is surely a need for a full public inquiry, and it should surely first consider the pay-off to the chief executive and the fact that people are too often rewarded for failure. This chief executive received £400,000. I have a copy of the private investigation into his actions. Surely it should be published in full-it is heavily redacted, which amounts to a cover-up of the full findings of the investigation. It points to a case for disciplinary action, yet there was a very substantial pay-off to this chief executive.
	A public inquiry should also look at the role of targets. The statement rightly said that blaming targets in their entirety would let management off the hook, but not looking at targets lets the Government off the hook, given that targets played a part in the failures of this hospital.
	It is also essential to look fully at the role of regulation. I am pleased that there will be a further inquiry into that, but it should surely be held in public and should look at the complex web of regulation that we have created. The fact that we have five different national organisations with some responsibility for patient safety has resulted in no one taking proper responsibility for it. In Basildon, for example, there were 21 visits by seven different organisations in the year before the final report emerged. We need to look at the devastating report into the role and failure of regulation that was commissioned by the NHS Confederation last summer. It showed that we have ended up with paper safety rather than real patient safety and a tick-box culture.
	A public inquiry should also look at the process for securing foundation trust status, which provided a false reassurance to people that the hospital was performing to a high standard. Finally, do we not owe it to the families of those who have lost their lives to have a full examination in public of the wider lessons that need to be learned from this scandal?

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a shocking report that damages the name of the national health service. He asked why the report did not allow consideration of wider national issues, but he will have seen that the report does comment on national lessons to be learned. There were four recommendations in the report, which I spelled out in my statement when I responded to those points. I did agree with the chairman that he could comment on what he wanted to comment on. However, we wanted the inquiry to focus primarily on the trust and the voices of the patients affected by the terrible events in the trust, so that we could get to the bottom of the failings and allow the trust to move on-which is, I believe, what we must do.
	I wanted to get to the bottom of events as quickly as I practically could. I was also anxious that the trust should not be debilitated by a protracted inquiry that would divert it from its main job. I believe that we have got to the bottom of what happened locally; I now want the trust to move forward, and I believe that it is moving forward under the leadership of the new chair and chief executive. However, I accept Robert Francis's recommendation that we look more closely at the bodies that have a supervisory, regulatory and commissioning role in relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have already embarked on that task. David Colin-Thomé has done some work in examining the role of the primary care trust, but we must now put that work on a proper footing-knowing what we know from the first inquiry-so that we can learn the lessons at a national level, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman today that that is what we will do.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the failings were not unique to this particular trust, and rightly observed that what went wrong in this instance was caused by a focus on process rather than on people. The words "focus on process" were used by Robert Francis, and they are at the heart of what went wrong. There was a failure to understand and respond to the public about what matters, and to see each patient as an individual deserving of the very highest standard of care-the care that we would all want our own families to receive.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the failings described in the report are not unique to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, but it must also be said that the scale on which they occurred make the events in that trust unique. I sought an assurance from the Care Quality Commission that no other NHS trust exhibits problems on the scale of those found at Mid Staffordshire, and it gave me that assurance today, but let me also assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain constantly vigilant, and will ensure that every possible action is taken to deal with poor performance and poor quality in the NHS.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Garland report on the former chief executive of the trust. I understand that he did not receive £400,000, but received his notice period and no more than his contractual entitlement.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about targets. The suggestion is that targets are there to distract people in the NHS from patient care, but they are essentially about the basic minimum that every person who arrives at the door of the NHS should be able to expect. They are fundamentally about people and the quality of care that should be given to every single person, regardless of their background or what they bring to the door of the NHS. In this case, the trust grotesquely failed to manage the pressure involved in delivering that basic standard of care to every person who arrives at the door of the NHS, which is what so many other trusts throughout the country manage to do.
	Let me remind the hon. Gentleman what happened before there were targets for accident and emergency departments. The previous Government, in fact, suggested a four-hour target because there was chaos in A and E departments in the early and mid-1990s, and the present Government retained that target because basic minimum standards must be available to every patient who arrives at the door of an accident and emergency department.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for a proper safety structure rather than "paper safety". I can tell him that I take my responsibilities in respect of the new registration process extremely seriously. He will know that I have expedited the introduction of that system, which I believe directly responds to the concern that he has expressed.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for a full inquiry into all these events. I believe that the second inquiry that I am setting up today will meet his demands. I invite him to comment on the draft terms of reference, and if he believes that they can be strengthened, I shall listen to his comments.
	What the hon. Gentleman has asked for, I will carry through. We will ensure that there is no repetition of these events in the national health service.

Kevin Barron: I must tell my right hon. Friend that I am not surprised by the contents of the report-although I have not read it yet-in view of the evidence taken a few months ago by the Select Committee on Health about patient safety, part of which concerned the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. When we debate the subject in Westminster Hall next month, it will be possible to flesh out these matters a little further.
	My right hon. Friend said that more groups were being formed to examine a number of issues, including whistleblowing. May I ask him to look again at the recommendations in the Health Committee's report on patient safety? We suggested that there should be a system of whistleblowing like the one in New Zealand, which seems to be far more efficient and provide people with far more access. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his statement, people in the NHS do not feel that they are able to blow whistles in an appropriate manner, even when there are horror stories such as those about what was happening to patients in Stafford hospital.

Andy Burnham: The Chair of the Health Committee has made a fundamentally important point, and he is right to press me on this issue. I believe that at times there is a failure at local level in the NHS to exercise the openness and transparency for which the House of Commons regularly calls.
	I recall the debates on the foundation trust legislation. At the heart of that proposal was the replacement of national accountability with a greater degree of local accountability. It is impossible to say that that fundamental founding vision of what it meant to be a foundation trust was fulfilled in the Mid Staffordshire trust, and the issue of whistleblowing is an important aspect of that.
	I do not believe that there is any Member in any part of the House who does not believe in the principle of whistleblowing. I do not believe that any of us would tolerate in our constituencies circumstances in which staff did not feel that they could come forward. We would want any member of the NHS to feel able and free to bring to our surgeries concerns about the trust in which he or she works. I believe that that goes for every Member of this House: no one who does this job wants to push away problems rather than addressing them directly.
	We have put that requirement in the NHS constitution, and I repeat it today on the Floor of the House. We fundamentally uphold the right of NHS staff to raise concerns, and if their local trust does not have a culture that supports that, the position must be changed.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are extremely important matters. Let me repeat Mr. Speaker's earlier remarks. If I am to call every Member who wishes to ask a question, I must urge Members to ask brief questions and the Secretary of State-please-to give one brief answer.

William Cash: As the Secretary of State knows, from day one I have called for a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and I am glad that that request has been reiterated from my party's Front Bench today. Does the Secretary of State accept that many people feel that they did not obtain full justice from the report? The inquiry was held in private; furthermore, the very fact that the Secretary of State has arranged a further report from the same QC indicates that there should have been a full public inquiry in the first place.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the self-assessment question-the issue of the emphasis placed by the people in the regulatory system on targets and money-driven rather than patient-focused care-is the key question that must be looked into in relation to Stafford, and that in order to get that right-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had his money's worth.

Andy Burnham: And he deserves to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to him for the role that he has played in bringing his concerns to me and to the Minister of State, and for the discussions that we have had.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about "full justice". As the Prime Minister said earlier, individuals can make their complaints directly through a process of investigation. As for the fundamental question of whether it was right to hold a private inquiry, I have two points to make. I have to balance the need to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's local trust takes immediate steps to improve the quality of care that it provides for his constituents. I see that as my fundamental duty: above all else, I must help people today in the quality of care they receive. I accept that others may not agree, but it was my judgment that an inquiry of this nature was more likely to get to the bottom of the issues more quickly, so that the trust could focus on the job of improving patient care. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to Robert Francis's comment that he believed he received more from the public and staff because of the nature of this inquiry. The same level of privacy is clearly not justified in a national inquiry, however, which is why I say in the terms of reference that the presumption is that it should be conducted in public.

Charlotte Atkins: First, may I congratulate Cure the NHS on its work? I am delighted that the Secretary of State is determined to learn the lessons from Stafford so that the whole NHS can benefit. It is absolutely right that hospital trust boards must always meet in public. It is also right that the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust should be de-authorised, but will the Secretary of State ensure that hospital managers do not profit from their failures and that other hospitals looking to apply for trust status, such as the University hospital of North Staffordshire, do not make the same mistakes as Stafford by putting financial issues and staffing levels before patient safety?

Andy Burnham: May I echo my hon. Friend's comments about Cure the NHS? Although this process is, of course, very difficult for all those affected at the local level, I can say without fear of contradiction today that the actions that it has taken are now leading to changes in the national health service that will prevent a repeat situation from arising either locally or elsewhere. A number of changes that will benefit patients everywhere have already been made.
	I had to reread the passage in the report that stated that on receiving foundation trust status, the trust began holding more meetings in private, because that beggars belief. As anybody who debated the FT legislation knows, that fundamentally contradicts the vision for foundation trust status. I repeat to all foundation trusts today that we expect meetings to be held in public wherever possible. I also very much hear what my hon. Friend says about the importance of not jeopardising the quality of patient care. Patient safety is the paramount and overriding priority of every NHS hospital, and of every NHS organisation. Everything else comes second to that.

Patrick Cormack: In thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for their unfailing courtesy in keeping Staffordshire Members informed, may I ask the Secretary of State to insist that the inquiry he has announced today be held in public, and to reflect upon the words of a widow who came to see me after having lost her husband, probably unnecessarily: what is crucial is that confidence and trust in the trust must be restored now, so that the area and the people the trust serves can look upon it with confidence and trust?

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for the manner in which he has helped us address these issues; his courtesy is always appreciated. I entirely agree that confidence is the key issue. This is another difficult day for the hospital, but I believe that from today the trust can begin to move forward, because we have now inquired fully and in depth at the local level. I believe the trust is making progress under Antony Sumara and Sir Stephen Moss; that is reflected in the report and in the reports that I hear locally from Stafford, and we need to do everything we possibly can to support them. There are 140 extra staff at the trust, and it has received about £4.5 million from the West Midlands strategic health authority. Support is going into the trust, therefore. We are considering whether we should initiate a process of de-authorisation, but we would only do so because we may be able to get more support more quickly to the trust, in order to build the confidence that the hon. Gentleman rightly calls for.

Tony Wright: Even after four inquiries, it is still impossible not to be shocked by the record of failure of care in this case. We now know, beyond peradventure, what happened, and I think we know why it happened. What we do not yet know enough about is how it could have been allowed to happen. That is why there is a valid case for a fifth inquiry, into the regulatory structure, and I am glad the Secretary of State has announced that today. May I make one further point? There is one group of people who bear no responsibility for what happened: the patients. If we have one overriding obligation now, it is to make sure both that that hospital, which has failed them, pays for the errors of the past by being supported by the national health service, and that patient care in that hospital is as safe and effective as possible.

Andy Burnham: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is right that there have been earlier inquiries, and I commissioned this extra report in order to hear loud and clear the voices of his constituents and those of other hon. Members who have spoken, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The report is a thoroughly depressing read. When we hear and read stories of how patients were treated-and of patients doing their all to help staff, such as by taking the linen home to wash it-we know that there has been a basic failure of care for the constituents of my hon. Friend and of other Members, and there must be the most thorough investigation of that at local and national level. That is what I believe I am delivering to my hon. Friend and other colleagues in this House, and to their constituents. In the Francis report today, I believe we have the most thorough local investigation, and that will be followed by the second-stage inquiry, conducted in public wherever possible, so that we can get absolutely to the bottom of these issues, and people can finally feel that the issues they have raised have been fully investigated.

Richard Taylor: As a member of the medical profession, I was staggered and saddened by the low profile and lack of effectiveness of staff whistleblowers in Stafford. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's promise to update whistleblowers guidance. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the work of Public Concern at Work need far more publicity. Does the Secretary of State agree that we still need to consider extra measures to support whistleblowers, who are still terrified of going through the normal channels? That is the whole point of my private Member's Bill.

Andy Burnham: May I say to my hon. Friend that my door is open to him to talk about his Bill and how we can deliver what we both want, which is to improve the culture in the NHS so that whistleblowers can come forward without fear of repercussions and recriminations? I cannot say today that that culture exists in all parts of the NHS, but I can say unequivocally that that is the culture I want to see in every corner of our national health service. If he is willing to work with me towards achieving that, I am sure that we have a completely common purpose.

Geoffrey Robinson: May I put a very simple point to my right hon. Friend? What clearly stands out from all this wealth of erudite and important words that we have heard in this House and everywhere else is that the hospital was terribly understaffed. If a company or any other organisation were so seriously understaffed, it would never get anywhere. I therefore have a suggestion. It involves one piece of paper, and I ask him not to resist it on that ground. In fact, such a piece of paper might already exist but have insufficient prominence. If we had one piece of paper on which hospitals had to list current staffing levels against the agreed requirement in the critical matter of doctors and nurses, we would all know whether or not there were sufficient staff to do the job. If such a piece of paper had been available, we could have avoided this whole situation.

Andy Burnham: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is, in many ways, the main message that comes out of the report. I was shocked to read that the work force review of March 2008 found a shortage of 120 whole-time equivalents, as well as one consultant in A and E when there should have been four, and 37 nurses when there should have been 55. Herein lie many of the problems the trust faced. It simply had an inadequate work force to deal with what needed to be done on a daily basis. That led to intolerable pressure on the wards, which in turn led to unacceptable treatment of patients. It is absolutely clear to me that this is unacceptable. That is one of the main messages that comes out of the report-and indeed, Robert Francis describes the trust as chronically understaffed.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State has said that one of his priorities is an early-warning system to ensure that what happened at Mid Staffs is not repeated elsewhere. The Dr Foster report identified seven hospitals with consistently high mortality rates. Is the Secretary of State going to order an investigation into those hospitals to make sure that their management is not leading to a possible repeat of what occurred at Mid Staffs?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman will know that action has been taken in respect of Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He may not be aware that further steps are being taken against Tameside hospital NHS foundation trust in Greater Manchester. Where action needs to be taken in order to intervene, we are taking that action. I should repeat to him the view of the Care Quality Commission, which is that there is no evidence to suggest that problems of this magnitude are replicated elsewhere in the NHS. I also say to him that I am not complacent on these issues: how could one ever be? Since what happened in Bristol, we can say with some confidence that we have, with the support of those on the Opposition Benches, begun a process whereby we are shining a spotlight on data in the NHS that in times past simply were not available. A wealth of data are now available to inform the public about standards at any particular trust. Many of the data are available on the NHS Choices website, but they can be improved so as to build a better understanding and appreciation of the picture at any trust. The hospital standardised mortality ratio-the HSMR-is not, in and of itself, a verdict on a trust; it is a trigger in respect of whether further action is required. As we have said today, we need further understanding of that target and an improvement of its methodology so that it is clearly understood across the NHS.

Frank Dobson: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to hold a further inquiry into the regulatory bodies, in particular Monitor. He is talking about asking Monitor to de-designate the trust as a foundation trust, but a more fundamental question is how the hell Monitor ever came to designate it as a foundation trust in the first place, in the middle of this scandal. That was a lamentable performance by Monitor, which was supposed to look into all aspects of the situation and then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. It seems that he can legitimately say that Monitor is not doing its job at all, and that some of the people at the top of Monitor ought to be leaving, under his new dispensation.

Andy Burnham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and his welcome for the second stage inquiry under Robert Francis. The questions that he has just put before the House will be very much at the centre of that second stage investigation. The problem may have been that undue prominence was given to financial matters, rather than quality of care, when the foundation trust application was being considered. I say that without having had the further inquiry conducted, but those are precisely the matters that it will examine. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend supports the step that we are taking by carrying it out.

Theresa Villiers: If the Secretary of State cares about patients, will he ask NHS London to think again about its deeply misguided plans for reconfiguring health care services in north London?

Andy Burnham: I do care about patient safety, and I say again that it is the overriding concern for every NHS organisation in the country, including NHS London. However, I would ask the hon. Lady to open her mind to the possibility that at times changes to hospital services are necessary to enhance standards of patient safety. The National Audit Office recently pushed Ministers on the reform of major trauma services, which implies a reconfiguration of hospital services. The lesson in the Mid Staffs case is that the trust was acting in isolation without sufficiently well developed clinical networks in its surrounding community. I say to the hon. Lady that sometimes patient safety may be enhanced, rather than diminished, by the reorganisation of services.

Gordon Prentice: May I return to the issue of HSMRs, which the Minister mentioned in his statement? He told us that there is no "clear account of how they should be used and interpreted. The result is confusion for patients and the public". He will know that people in east Lancashire are routinely told that the reconfiguration allegedly saved 200 lives. We know that academics and clinicians are reworking the methodology, but when will we get the results of that study, so that it can be applied across the NHS as a whole?

Andy Burnham: That is a very important piece of work, which is why I said in my statement that Professor Sir Bruce Keogh is already making progress on it. However, it is very important for the voices of the royal colleges, other professional bodies, and organisations across the health care world to be listened to in that work. When it is produced it will succeed only if it has support from, and is owned by, all those bodies. We will do this as quickly as we can, but in producing an HSMR measure in which the whole system has confidence we might need to take time to ensure that we carry out those discussions with all those concerned.

Brian Binley: May I pursue the question put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) by asking him specifically about Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which was one of the seven on the list? Many people in Northamptonshire are unnerved by the possibilities that might arise from the situation in Kettering. I wonder whether the Minister will reassure them by saying what specific action he has taken with regard to that trust?

Andy Burnham: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer his constituents to the statement made by the Care Quality Commission today. I will place its letter, which gives assurances about the NHS as a whole, in the Library. I should say to him that there is a need for constant vigilance on safety standards in the NHS. The HSMRs are not, of themselves, evidence of failure-but they can provide a trigger for inquiry into whether standards are sufficiently high at any one hospital. I encourage him to continue to ask questions and to work with his local trust to ensure that standards are sufficiently robust at his local trust; that is exactly what I do with my local hospital. However, we need a better measurement of mortality ratios so that we can all be clear about, and have confidence in, what they tell us about our local hospitals.

Point of Order

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask this while the Secretary of State is in his place, and with malnourishment being one of the many serious issues that arose at Mid Staffs. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer given to me on 2 February 2010, at column 236W of  Hansard, saying that the nutrition action plan, which the Government have been sitting on since as far back as last July, would be published "in February 2010." If that is to happen with a statement made to the House, it would need to happen tomorrow. Have you been given any indication that there will be an oral statement on that subject tomorrow?

Andy Burnham: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I understand that the Secretary of State is anxious to say something.

Andy Burnham: Briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tomorrow is dignity action day, and we will publish the nutrition action plan report tomorrow.

Public Bodies (Procurement of Seafood)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

David Drew: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public bodies to purchase only those seafood species and stocks that are demonstrably sustainable; and for connected purposes.
	I am delighted to introduce this Bill. Even as I speak, promising changes are afoot. A written answer to me that was published yesterday clearly put on the record the departmental fish procurement percentages, and I was pleased to see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had-this is according to what I have read-refused to sign off the EU protocol on tuna because it was not sustainable enough. So, this Bill is appropriate at this time, if not prescient. I thank, in particular, Alex Jackson of Sustain for allowing me to introduce it, and all those Members-some 50 or more-who signed early-day motion 226 to draw attention to this important issue.
	No one can be in any doubt that the way in which we catch and consume fish on a global scale is of great importance given that it is devastating the biodiversity of our oceans and endangering some of our best loved fish species. Stopping the destruction will require action to change both how we catch fish and how we consume it. The Bill focuses on the crucial consumption side of that solution and outlines how Government, as a huge consumer of fish in the public sector, can lead by example in the purchase of sustainable seafood.
	What is the problem? It is important to understand that fish stocks need careful management and that fisheries that are over-exploited can collapse suddenly, causing irreversible damage. Probably the most famous example of such a collapse occurred off the east coast of Newfoundland in 1992 when cod stocks vanished, the local industry evaporated and 40,000 people lost their jobs. To this day, the cod have not returned.
	Data from the United Nations fisheries and aquaculture department paint a very bleak picture of the state of our oceans. On a global scale, it estimates that
	"80 per cent. of the world fish stocks for which assessment information is available are reported as fully exploited or overexploited and, thus, requiring effective and precautionary management."
	In British waters, we face an urgent problem. In the north-east Atlantic, the majority of commercial stocks are fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's fisheries and aquaculture department's report of 2005. British salmon stocks are considered to be fully or over-exploited and North sea plaice, cod and sole are considered to be outside safe biological limits.
	The experts also tell us that the threat posed by climate change will only serve to exacerbate those problems. In 2005, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted that climate change will have a significant impact on the future abundance and distribution of fish stocks.
	What will the Public Bodies (Procurement of Seafood) Bill do? It will help support the sustainability of global fish stocks and species by making it a legal requirement that public bodies in the UK can only buy fish that is proven to be sustainable. It would do that by prohibiting the purchase in the public sector of fish from the Marine Conservation Society's "Fish to Avoid" list, which includes all fish in danger of over-exploitation. It would also require that all wild-caught fish purchased by the public sector should come from stocks that meet the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation's code of conduct for responsible fisheries, which includes fish that meets the need for Marine Stewardship Council sustainability certification.
	The Bill would aim to achieve three important things. First, it would ensure that the Government spend public money on fish in a responsible way that acts to solve environmental problems rather than causing them. Each individual British taxpayer spends approximately £70 a year on public sector food. They need to know that their money is being spent by Government to support the marine ecosystem and protect the sustainability of popular fish species rather than putting them at risk.
	Secondly, the public sector should lead by example in the food we buy and serve to educate through best practice. It is especially important that public bodies lead by example in the purchase of fish, because the issues surrounding the sustainability of seafood are complex and not generally well known by the public. The Bill would guarantee that the public sector generates greater awareness of the issue and would also demonstrate to those who eat and prepare public sector food what sustainable fish is and how it can be purchased. That is particularly important when we consider that the public sector serves more than 1 billion meals a year to consumers including nursery and school children, hospital patients, elderly people in care homes and members of the armed forces.
	Thirdly, the sheer purchasing power of Government has the capacity to drive the market for sustainable seafood, catalysing advances in the seafood industry. So, what about the public sector? The public sector is a big consumer of fish, but it is not an ethical consumer of fish. Sustain, the alliance for food and farming, estimates that each year the Government spend more than £40 million a year on seafood in the public sector. At present, public sector organisations are not required to meet any legal standard for the fish that they buy. There is Government guidance, but no rules. In fact, the Government do not even require the public sector to meet the rules they introduced under the fish labelling regulations, through which retailers must clearly label the origin and species, including the method of production, for all fish and fillets sold.
	As a result, the public sector buys fish species that include some of the most vulnerable stocks in the world. The Ministry of Justice, for example, spends £1.25 million a year on fish and more than one 10th of that total is spent on haddock, without any regard to its sustainability. That is a huge cause for concern because, according to the Marine Conservation Society, some stocks of haddock are "unsustainable, overfished and vulnerable".
	The picture is not any better in hospitals, where tiger prawns, dogfish and swordfish-species which are often produced particularly unsustainably-are available to purchase from the big catering companies. Research compiled by Sustain showed that of 341 fish, seafood or fish-based sandwich filling products provided by the biggest supplier of food to the NHS, which trades using an NHS logo, only one is listed in its catalogue as certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.
	There can be little doubt that the future of popular global fish species lies precariously in the balance. The Bill provides a clear legal framework that would ensure that the millions of pounds of public money spent on seafood each and every year is invested in a way that would transform the long-term sustainability of seafood species throughout the world.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. David Drew, Peter Bottomley, Andrew Stunell, Annette Brooke, Mark Durkan, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Alan Simpson present the Bill.
	Mr. David Drew accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March and to be printed (Bill 72).

Energy Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.

Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that fuel poverty and energy efficiency are key elements of this Bill. There was significant debate in Committee about a Government document called the household energy management strategy, about which the Under-Secretary told us on 14 January:
	"I would have liked to have been able to brandish that to Committee members today, but it will come out in a couple of weeks' time-ish." --[ Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2010; c. 218.]
	A week later, he said that they were
	"on...course to ensure that Members will see the strategy before Report". --[ Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2010; c. 403.]
	We were given those assurances five and six weeks ago-the strategy has not come out so far. It is fundamental to our consideration of the Bill. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put pressure on Ministers, even at this late stage, to produce this important document?

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and remind the Under-Secretary, through you, of the undertaking and the conversation between all three parties. It is nonsense to try to debate the future of this part of policy without the relevant Government document, which must be available somewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker is always anxious that all the documents necessary for a debate should be available before that debate takes place. That is obviously even more important if assurances have been given that the document will be ready. Those on the Front Bench will have heard the points of order. On the question of whether it is possible to do anything about it, there is nothing more that I can do from the Chair but repeat that it is important that all the documents necessary for a debate are ready and available before that debate begins.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Reports on decarbonisation and CCS progress

'(1) The Secretary of State must, for each reporting period, prepare a report on progress during the reporting period-
	(a) in decarbonising electricity generation in Great Britain (covering separately generation by coal-fired generating stations), and
	(b) in the development and use of carbon capture and storage technology in Great Britain.
	(2) Each of the first three reports under subsection (1) must include an assessment by the Secretary of State-
	(a) of whether use of carbon capture and storage technology in generation of electricity on a commercial scale has been, or when it will be, successfully demonstrated;
	(b) of whether coal-fired generating stations for which appropriate consent is given on or after 1st January 2020 that are built in Great Britain can be expected to be constructed so as to enable use of carbon capture and storage technology on all their generating capacity.
	(3) A report under subsection (1) must also include a review of whether, having regard to the other matters contained in the report, any government policies should be revised and, if so, why.
	(4) In preparing a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must-
	(a) consult the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers;
	(b) take into account any relevant points raised by reports by the Committee on Climate Change under section 36 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (reports on progress).
	(5) The Secretary of State must, within 1 year after the end of a reporting period, lay before Parliament a document containing the report under subsection (1) for that period.
	(6) In this section-
	"appropriate consent" means consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 114(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008;
	"coal-fired generating station" means an electricity generating station powered wholly or mainly by coal;
	"decarbonising electricity generation" means reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from electricity generation;
	"reporting period" means-
	(a) the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending with 2011;(b) the 3 year period beginning with 2012 and each subsequent 3 year period;
	and "the reporting period", in relation to a report under subsection (1), means the reporting period to which the report relates.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6- Carbon emissions performance standard -
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations or otherwise for a carbon emissions performance standard to set the maximum level or levels of carbon dioxide that may be emitted per unit of output by all individual generating stations.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall review the emissions performance standard established under subsection (1) no less frequently than every three years.
	(3) In establishing the level or levels of the carbon dioxide emissions performance standard in subsection (1), and in carrying out the review required in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must-
	(a) take into account the most up-to-date scientific knowledge about climate change; and
	(b) obtain and take into account the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, particularly in relation to carbon budgets, medium- and long-term emission reduction targets, and future emissions from the electricity generating sector.
	(4) The Secretary of State must introduce the standard under subsection (1) no later than 12 months from the date on which this Act is passed.'.
	New clause 15- Emissions performance standard -
	'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce an Emissions Performance Standard to apply to new electricity generation plant.
	(2) In this section "Emission Performance Standard" means a restriction on the amount of carbon dioxide that electricity generation plant can emit.
	(3) In setting such a level, the Secretary of State must take account of the latest information available to him on-
	(a) the most up-to-date scientific knowledge about climate change;
	(b) the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, particularly in relation to carbon budgets, medium and long-term emission reduction targets, and future emissions from the electricity generating sector;
	(c) the affordability of electricity prices for consumers; and
	(d) national energy security.
	(4) The Secretary of State must set out his proposals for consultation within six months of the passage of this Act, with final proposals to be placed before Parliament within 12 months.'.
	New clause 25- Emissions performance standard -
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, make provision by regulations or otherwise for a carbon dioxide emissions performance standard to set the maximum level of carbon dioxide that may be emitted each year by any coal fired electricity generating station.
	(2) The maximum level of carbon dioxide under subsection (1) will be no more than 25 per cent. of the emissions that would be produced by a coal fired power station of an equivalent size operating without any carbon capture and storage equipment.
	(3) The emissions performance under subsection (1) will come into effect no later than 2025.'.
	Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 4, line 17, at end insert-
	'(2A) An electricity supply levy will not be charged in respect of supplies of electricity, derived exclusively from renewable sources of energy.'.
	Government amendments 5, 9 and 36.

Joan Ruddock: First, let me say that the document is not central to the features of the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave that undertaking in Committee, he did so in good faith. We want to get the document right, and it will be published shortly, but I do not believe that it is vital to the conduct of this debate.
	Let me now address new clause 8 and Government amendments 5, 9 and 36. There has been much discussion during the passage of the Bill about the need to reduce the emissions from electricity generation and particularly from fossil fuel generation. In many ways, this issue is at the heart of my Department's mission. The decarbonisation of the electricity sector is central to achieving our statutory goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050. The low carbon transition plan, which was published last July, set out our plans for getting about 40 per cent. of our electricity supplies from low carbon sources by 2020. Those plans include a comprehensive package of measures such as increasing support for renewable technologies, facilitating the development of new nuclear power stations, and demonstrating, then deploying, carbon capture and storage technology in our fossil fuel plants.
	We have not stopped there. The lead times for investment decisions in energy infrastructure are such that we now need to develop clear pathways towards our 2050 goal; we cannot just stop at 2020. Our decarbonisation pathways to 2050 document, which will also be published shortly, will build on our low carbon transition plan and set out possible pathways to a low-carbon UK, including the decarbonisation of the electricity sector.
	The need to decarbonise the electricity sector means that the issue of emissions from fossil fuel power station has to be addressed. Coal-fired power stations generate about 30 per cent. of UK electricity and about 40 per cent. of global electricity. Tackling emissions from coal-fired power stations must therefore be a priority if we are to avert dangerous climate change while enabling countries to maintain energy security.

John Redwood: How many new power stations do we need to commence building this year to avoid the risk of the lights going out because of the incoming, much tighter emissions standards and the retirement of old plants? On how many will construction start this year?

Joan Ruddock: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that we have an energy mix and a privatised energy market. It will be up to the companies to decide what investment they make. What we endeavour to do in the Bill is make it possible and profitable for companies to invest in new coal. We believe that if it were not for the provisions of the Bill, we would not get the new coal-fired stations that we will need, because we will lose a third of existing coal-fired capacity by 2015.
	These are issues with which Parliament should be rightly concerned. We have set out clear ambitions that any new coal plant constructed from 2020 will be fully carbon capture and storage from day one and that coal-fired power stations with demonstration projects will retrofit CCS to their full capacity by 2025. Let me make it absolutely clear that there will be only a limited role for unabated coal in the 2020s.

Michael Weir: The Minister might be about to come on to this point. I note that new clause 8 mentions the need to decide
	"whether coal-fired generating stations for which appropriate consent is given on or after 1st January 2020 that are built in Great Britain can"
	have full capacity for CCS. Can she assure us that it is not anticipated that coal stations that cannot have CCS in them after 2020 will continue to operate, or is it anticipated that such stations might continue without CCS?

Joan Ruddock: It is very important to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in context. If he will permit me, I shall continue to set out the case, which will, I think, answer his question.
	I repeat that these are issues with which Parliament should be rightly concerned. Ensuring that our policies deliver the carbon reductions that we need within the time frame that we need them is of critical importance if we are serious about tackling climate change. New clause 8 provides the means for Parliament to hold the Government to account for progress on these matters. It requires the Government to lay before Parliament, every three years, a report on progress towards the decarbonisation of the electricity sector including the decarbonisation of coal-fired power stations. The report will also include an assessment of the status of CCS technologies and progress towards demonstration at a commercial scale, and whether coal-fired power stations that have been consented to from 2020 can be expected to be fully CCS from the start.

Colin Challen: rose-

Paddy Tipping: rose-

Colin Challen: I think that I was a second ahead, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take both interventions. Will she spell out what decarbonisation means in the context of this debate? I know that the Government have had a consultation on the subject. When we talk about CCS, are we talking about 100 per cent. abatement, 50 per cent. abatement or somewhere in between? I hope that we are talking about nothing less.

Joan Ruddock: Knowing how deep an interest my hon. Friend takes in these matters, I am afraid that I cannot answer his question in the precise detail that he would require. We will follow the advice that we get from the independent Committee on Climate Change, which has already made pronouncements on the decarbonisation of the electricity supply by 2030. We are currently considering how to progress from 2020 through 2030 to 2050, and it is in that context that we will be able to give him a definitive answer.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister believe that we need to be really honest with people and say that CCS has real potential but that it is currently unproven? That is why we need demonstration plans and a period of time in which to experiment with the technology and economics of the area. Those who press for early action risk the possibility of closing down CCS plants.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend demonstrates real understanding of and wisdom on this issue. As I continue with my remarks, I will give force to the points that he has made. CCS is a new technology and we need to work on it, but it has great promise.

Martin Horwood: Does the Minister agree with the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme that
	"there are only four fully integrated, commercial-scale CCS projects in operation"
	today-at Sleipner, at In Salah in Algeria, at Snøhvit in Norway and at Weyburn-Midale in the US and Canada?

Joan Ruddock: I am sorry to contradict what I am sure is an excellent report-indeed, I might not contradict it, as there may be a misunderstanding about size-but I am advised that there are no plants operating at the scale that we are proposing in our CCS arrangements for this country. There are plants operating at a pilot scale and there are research plants in other parts of the country, but there are no known commercially viable plants operating at the scale that we propose.

Bob Spink: The Minister will have seen the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on CCS and its investigation, so she will know that the Committee agrees with her regarding CCS and the developing technology and that we must not rush into it too quickly and fall. She will also be aware that the three-year review period mentioned in new clause 8 is a very long period. Has she considered making it a one or two-year period?

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I know that he, too, takes a great interest in these matters. We certainly did consider having a shorter reporting period, but because there is quite a long way to go to make CCS operational at a commercial scale, the three-year period seems appropriate to us. That will mean that we will report in 2012 at the latest-just a couple of years from now-and in 2015 and 2018, coinciding with the review period. We think that that is appropriate, but of course hon. Members can always ask for ministerial statements at any time.

Brian Binley: I recognise the wisdom of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), but also the need for balance in these matters. Will the Minister therefore confirm that competition among nation states for investment in CCS technology is massive and growing quickly? Does she agree that we must make sure that we do not disappoint potential investors by giving the impression that we are not overly bothered?

Joan Ruddock: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am so glad to see such support on the Opposition Benches, from him at least. He is right: we need to get on with this- [ Interruption. ] I think that we may hear from some members on the Opposition Front Bench that they want to tinker with our plan for CCS, and possibly undermine it. We are very concerned about that.

Greg Clark: Get on with it, then.

Joan Ruddock: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) says that we should get on with it, and that is certainly what we want to do. We want to have these plants up and running: that is the very heart of this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) for his remarks. He is absolutely right about the competition, as we need to make sure that the UK remains a leader in this field.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. She questioned the scale of existing CCS projects. The Sleipner project in Norway currently stores 1 million tonnes of CO2 a year in the Utsera saline formation, which is expected to have a total capacity of about 600 billion tonnes. What kind of scale is she imagining?

Joan Ruddock: Unfortunately, I do not have to hand the document to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Although my understanding is that the facility concerned is not a coal plant that generates electricity, which is what this Bill deals with, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Norwegians have done groundbreaking work on the storage of CO2. That is very valuable, and is part of the knowledge that we have today. The results achieved in Norway enable us to say with confidence that we know that the storage end of the chain seems to be practicable. However, we are talking about an operation involving generation, transport and storage, and no system covering those three components on a large scale exists in the world today.

Martin Horwood: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Joan Ruddock: No, as I need to move on a little. I have a lot to say and I regret that it may take me a little while to get through it all.
	The House will recall that I was talking about new clause 8. The final element of the report will be a review of whether Government policies should be revised in order to achieve our stated goals. I think that it is very important that I draw that to hon. Members' attention.
	A key part of the new clause is the requirement for the Secretary of State to take into account points raised by the independent Committee on Climate Change. That will ensure that reports will have to consider the advice of the organisation best placed to judge progress in delivering carbon reductions. I think that that answers to some extent the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping).
	This new clause, with the first report due in 2012, will guarantee hon. Members the opportunity to scrutinise progress towards our decarbonisation objectives and, importantly, to challenge the Government's actions. It will ensure that the Government undertake a regular review of key policies. It will ensure regular assessment as to whether policies require revision in order to deliver on our commitments. It is the backstop that will ensure that there is only a limited role for unabated coal in the future.
	Amendments 5 and 9 make consequential amendments to part 1 of the Bill, and amendment 36 is a consequential amendment to the long title.
	The new reporting clause is designed to give confidence to those who argue for an emissions performance standard. We share the concern across the House for greater progress on decarbonisation of our energy supplies. We agree with the Climate Change Committee that a step change in the pace of emissions reductions is required. We reflect this need in the measures set out in our low carbon transition plan, which will deliver emissions reductions to achieve our target of 34 per cent. over 1990 levels by 2020. They will also enable us to meet our statutory carbon budgets.
	Emissions from the power sector are already regulated through the EU emissions trading scheme, which is at the heart of our domestic and EU efforts to tackle climate change. Phase 3 of the scheme, starting in three years' time, provides a significantly stronger framework than previous phases. An EU-wide cap will ensure a more ambitious, certain and consistent approach across the EU, and in the UK there will be 100 per cent. auctioning of allowances to the power sector, which will ensure that the cost of carbon is better integrated into business decisions.
	I acknowledge, however, that the EU ETS on its own is not sufficient to reduce emissions from the power sector to the extent required. That is why the transition plan contains a raft of measures aimed at promoting the development and deployment of renewables, new nuclear and, of course, clean coal.
	Our policy measures for clean coal are specifically designed to deliver a package that will enable us to meet the Climate Change Committee's recommendation that there should be only a limited role for unabated coal in the 2020s. There are four elements to the package, as follows: all new coal-fired power stations must demonstrate CCS at commercial-scale, around 400 megawatts of output; four commercial-scale demonstration projects on coal-fired power stations will be funded by the CCS incentive delivered by this Bill; demonstration stations will be expected to be retrofitted to their full capacity by 2025; and, finally, a rolling review of progress in the development of CCS technology will culminate in a report by 2018 that will consider the case for new regulatory and financial measures to drive the move to clean coal. I think that that goes some way to answering the questions raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
	No other coal-dependent country has a policy that says that no new unabated coal-fired power stations will be built. No other country has a statutory financial incentive capable of raising the sums required to support the capital and operational costs of four large-scale CCS projects over the next 10 to 15 years.

David Anderson: Will the Minister give the House some idea of what the financial liability will be for taxpayers and consumers?

Joan Ruddock: At the moment, I cannot answer that question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, in devising the scheme, we have taken proper account of where the balance of interests lies. It is in the interests of all our consumers to have security of supply. We believe that coal must remain in the mix, and that the incentive could ensure that.
	As always, we will consult at length about how the levy is framed. When the proposal is put out for consultation, the impact assessment will make clear what the effect will be, but we do not envisage that a disproportionate burden will fall on consumers in this country. We all know that we have to move to low carbon, and that everyone has to make a contribution. It is the Government's policy to try to protect those consumers with the least means to pay their energy bills.
	I was setting out the elements of our plan for CCS. Far from being a laggard, as is often suggested by the Opposition, Britain is leading the world on this agenda, as is widely acknowledged by other countries. The new reporting requirement in new clause 8 guarantees that Parliament has the opportunity to challenge the Government on delivery of this programme to monitor our wider decarbonisation of the electricity sector, and to consider whether an emissions performance standard might be needed in the future. The introduction of an EPS now, as required by new clauses 6, 15 and 25-all of which are supported by some Labour Back Benchers, as well as by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties-would not lead to greater emissions reductions than those delivered by the framework that I have just set out and the EU ETS.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the EPS could scupper the whole carbon capture project? The fact that the target cannot be reached in the initial phase means that the project would automatically have to come to an end. The EPS would therefore defeat the whole purpose.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend anticipates me. I have just said that the introduction of an EPS now would not lead to any greater emissions reductions. In my next sentence I intended to say that instead it could prevent any new investment in coal, and thus the demonstration of CCS and the development of clean coal. My hon. Friend is right.

Gavin Strang: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would be capable of setting a level-obviously, no level is specified in any of the new clauses-that will not prevent investment in CCS?

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend suggests that we set a level and says that no level is set in the new clauses. That is not quite true. A level is set in one of the clauses that we are about to debate.
	What we are saying clearly is that an EPS, whether it is set at a specific level or whether it is entirely open, will undermine the coal programme that we set out, all the provisions in the Bill, and the investment that companies will be prepared to make if-if-there is support for CCS. They will not be prepared to make that investment in circumstances in which there is uncertainty about layering over some other standards.

Greg Clark: Remove the uncertainty.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman will have to answer questions about the level at which the standard would be set, when it would be introduced and what he understands would be the effect on investment in new coal. I suggest to him that the effect would be no new coal. If that is the Conservative party policy and intention, he will have the opportunity to tell the House this afternoon when he makes his own speech.
	I shall try to make progress. The energy industry, the CBI and the TUC have all told us, in no uncertain terms, that an emissions performance standard introduced now will significantly undermine investment plans. If there are no new coal power stations, that puts at risk the whole demonstration of CCS in the UK. Does that matter? We think it does. It matters because CCS has the potential to play a critical role globally in tackling climate change. It matters because fossil fuels play a vital role in our energy mix, and CCS is the only technology that will allow them to continue in a low carbon future.

John Redwood: I know the Minister does not have detailed figures, but surely she must have some idea of the relative costs to the consumer and the taxpayer of cleaned-up coal power, compared with wind power, wave power and so forth. We need to know that to inform our judgment.

Joan Ruddock: I am sorry. Perhaps I did not respond sufficiently to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) who asked the question, and I am happy that it has been repeated. I say again that the design of the levy and the consultation have yet to come, but in our discussions we anticipated the cost to the householder being 2 to 3 per cent. on bills by 2020, arising specifically from these provisions. We all have to bear some burden for developing the low carbon economy. The Government will do that in a proportional way and we will try to protect the poorest.
	By acting early on CCS we open up opportunities for UK businesses in a major future market, sustaining 30,000 to 60,000 jobs. But it is not just coal that is at risk. The extension of an emissions performance standard to gas-fired power stations, which is required by new clauses 6 and 15, would delay, and possibly deter altogether, investment in new gas projects.
	That is no small matter. Around 18 GW, which is about one quarter, of current electricity capacity is expected to be lost over the next decade as environmental standards for coal and oil power stations become more stringent and some nuclear plants close. A significant proportion of the new capacity that wills fill the gap is gas-fired. Any delay in investment caused by the regulatory uncertainty associated with an emissions performance standard will pose significant risks to the security of our energy supplies.
	I turn to the situation that we expect to be in by 2025, which is at the heart of new clause 25. Let me make it clear that the charge made by Greenpeace in  The Guardian today is unfounded. It will not be possible for
	"big energy companies to pollute far into the future from new coal-fired power stations like Kingsnorth".
	Greenpeace say it will, and I say it will not be possible. These are the reasons. We have made it clear that we expect that the CCS demonstration plants will retrofit CCS to their full capacity by 2025. Our aim is that any new coal-fired power station built after 2020 is 100 per cent. CCS from day one.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Lady repeatedly uses words such as "expect" and "aim". That is what fuels the scepticism of Greenpeace and many of the rest of us. What happens when an expectation is not met? Will she tell us what would happen to a power station in those circumstances? An expectation has no legal force.

Joan Ruddock: This country would not have got very far in its development over the industrial ages if the attitude that the hon. Gentleman portrays had been taken. We would not have had all the great innovations and the marvellous work of all our engineers. There were always expectations. There must be expectations if we are to achieve. To go forward and get things done, we must have expectations. We have expectations.
	A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was shouting from a sedentary position that CCS was a proven technology, and he cited Norway. He cannot have it both ways. Either he thinks the technology will work- [Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is absolutely right. Being a Lib Dem, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) can it have it both ways. The question is whether the technology is demonstrated at research and pilot level, which it is; whether it is promising, which it is; and whether it is a technology in which companies with enormous expertise are prepared to invest, which they are. It is all those things.
	It is reasonable to have expectations, but suppose the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic outlook were confirmed and all that were to fail. We have said categorically that there will be a rolling review. We are debating a clause that provides for a strict reporting regime. The House will always know what is happening in this field and Government policies can be adjusted. We have said that that rolling review will conclude by 2018. If the CCS technology is not working and is not deployable, we will have to introduce other means of curbing and decarbonising. We have said that clearly again and again.  [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) says that that is such a threat. One of the potential measures that could be introduced is the EPS, which he seems to favour so much. We have said that the proper way of dealing with the situation is to consider, measure and analyse what is happening with CCS. If it is a success, as we hope, we have solved the problem. If it is not, we have to move to another technology. That is the time to consider an EPS, not now.

Colin Challen: It would help me in the debate to understand better whether the Government are concerned about the timing of an EPS or about whether it is right in principle to introduce it. I agree with my hon. Friend's argument about the nature of development. Putting the standard before the development is like putting the cart before the horse. Our railways would not have developed if the standards were in place before the railways were built. Is it a question of timing? In principle, I support an EPS to stop any backsliding at a future date. That is the danger. If market conditions price coal at a certain level, certain future Governments might want to backslide on the whole deal.

Joan Ruddock: I could not have put it better myself, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the question is essentially one of timing: introducing an EPS today would be premature and undermine investment; and, as we progress with CCS we will be able to judge whether we require an EPS or, possibly, another mechanism. The Independent Committee on Climate Change has said that there could be as many as four ways of making further progress on decarbonisation, of which EPS is one. My hon. Friend may be right and EPS may become the favoured means if we have to deploy other means than CCS, but at this stage it would be premature to decide that an EPS was the right instrument, because several could be used and EPS is just one of them.
	As a consequence of the policy of new coal, CCS and retrofitting, by 2025 all new stations would be achieving abatement well above the EPS in new clause 25. It defines the EPS as limiting carbon dioxide to 25 per cent. of the emissions that would exist if CCS were not in place, but including a specific measure in legislation now might cut across the future methods of delivering our stated policies, and as I have clearly indicated it would not add anything to decarbonisation.
	Even the Independent Committee on Climate Change does not recommend the introduction of an EPS now. Instead, in its report of October last year, it identified a number of options, as I just indicated, for delivering the necessary investment in low-carbon generation. They include a carbon price floor, a feed-in tariff and a low-carbon obligation, as well as a low EPS.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that setting a target that is too low would have the same effect as setting a target that is too high? There would be no incentive to develop a coal station to a level that was always going to increase in the future. If we set the target at such a low level, however, that is what we will get.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know how much expertise he has in this field. I remind the House that the CCS technology promises to take out 90 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions.
	The Independent Committee on Climate Change report to which I referred clearly states that the committee
	"does not yet have a view on which measure would"-
	be-
	"best...but believes that all should be seriously considered in the near term".
	We know that the scale and pace of change that is needed to deliver low-carbon energy will test the current energy market arrangements, and that is why we are assessing the existing framework to ensure that we can deliver the investment that is needed. We will publish the initial findings of that work at this year's Budget. It would not be sensible to commit to one particular measure now, before that work is completed, particularly when very significant risks, which I have outlined, are attached.
	The introduction of an EPS does not depend on the Bill. If at some point in the future we decide that an EPS is required to deliver decarbonisation of the electricity sector, we already have a well established and comprehensive framework for introducing it under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

Judy Mallaber: It would clearly be advantageous if, by developing that technology, we could then assist other countries. We would secure a larger reduction in emissions globally if we were able to do that. Will the Minister indicate how our timetable for creating the prototypes will fit in with our development and export of that technology, if successful, so that other countries might use it and lower their own emissions?

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Given the extent to which the developing economies and the great emerging economies, such as China and India, will continue to use coal, CCS is absolutely vital to tackling climate change, as I said at the beginning of my speech. If we are able to develop the technology speedily in this country, there will be real export potential. Co-operation is already under way between the UK and China and the EU and China. The EU will also fund some CCS projects, of which we hope at least one will be in the UK, and they will be combining all the information. CCS is very much a global project, but at the same time, from the point of view of British industry, if we get ahead we will be in a very good position to help other countries and benefit financially.
	Amendment 1 relates to the CCS levy, which would be used to fund a new financial incentive to support industry in bringing forward a programme of four commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects and, should it prove necessary, the retrofit of any unabated coal capacity at those stations. The amendment would insert a provision in clause 4 exempting from the levy electricity that is produced from renewable sources.
	I made it clear in Committee, however, that we will not apply any exemptions or reduced levies based on the source of the electricity generated, and that includes renewables. For the foreseeable future, we will continue to depend on flexible fossil fuel plant to ensure that the electricity system can respond to changes in supply and demand, thus keeping our electricity system stable and ensuring security of supply. We know that that flexibility is likely to become more important in the future as variable renewal generation increases.
	The CCS levy will support the development of a low-carbon technology that will benefit all electricity consumers and, in the longer term, provide an additional form of affordable low-carbon generation. That is why the levy should apply to all types of supply. The one necessary exception that we foresee may be the exemption of electricity that is exported from the UK. Our intention is that the detailed policy for the levy, together with the draft regulations, will be subject to formal public consultation in the summer. Clause 4 also requires that regulations be laid in draft and approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are made.
	New clause 8 would put in place a reporting mechanism that provided for the scrutiny of progress on CCS and any adjustment to a policy that already provides the most comprehensive plans in the world for the development of clean coal. The introduction of an emissions performance standard at this stage would undermine the very basis of those plans, threaten much-needed investment and jeopardise our energy security. The Government will therefore oppose new clauses 6, 15 and 25.

Charles Hendry: As we start out deliberations on Report, it is appropriate that we put on the record our general gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have listened to the concerns expressed about some of the issues.

Edward Miliband: Hear, hear!

Charles Hendry: I would not go that far, but we are grateful for the way in which the Government listened to many of the discussions that took place and to the representations in Committee. Indeed, they have re-tabled some of the amendments that they voted against, and we greatly welcome that change of heart. We hope that that road to Damascus has not ended just yet, and that, on further reflection, they will continue on it.
	We absolutely agree with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) about the need to act urgently. We will lose one third of our coal-fired generation plant by 2016; the remaining oil plant, which is mainly used for peaking capacity, is due to close at the same time; most of our nuclear power stations, apart from Sizewell B, are due to close by the early 2020s, and there is an urgent need to build new capacity. However, if we look at the time scale, we know that the nuclear fleet, if it goes ahead, will begin to come into play only by the end of this decade; that carbon capture with coal can be commercial, again, only by the end of this decade; and that the scale of the Government's targets and objectives on renewables pushes their introduction out towards 2020. Therefore, there is a significant need for new gas generation in the system. The reality, though, is that as a result of the delays in starting to build those plants, our energy security has been put at severe risk, which has resulted in a scramble to try to put in place the required new-generation capacity. Indeed, the Government's own documentation, including the low-carbon transition plan, referred to the risk of potential power cuts by 2017, while this morning, in evidence before the Select Committee, the regular cited his concerns and those of Ofgem about the picture in the middle and latter part of this decade.
	We entirely accept the role that CCS and coal can play in the mix. It is a new technology, and it is one where we absolutely should be leading the world. The Minister said that Britain remains a leader, but she must be in danger of believing some of her own rhetoric. At the evidence sessions before we started the Bill's consideration in Committee, we heard many people say that we were losing our global opportunity, and we heard companies say that they had closed down their projects in Britain because of the approach adopted to them. Jeff Chapman, who heads up the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, said that Abu Dhabi and China will probably be the first two countries in the world to have commercial CCS facilities.
	Britain must do much more to recapture the necessary sense of urgency, which is why we have been urging the Government to speed up the competition-a competition which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) has described as a competition without end. Real frustration is felt about the pace of progress. The Government should have included the pre-combustion option at the outset. They should be taking a much greater strategic view about how one encourages clusters by requiring oversized pipelines to be installed from the outset. We have heard from the Government about the establishment of the office of carbon capture and storage, but, a year after its announcement, I gather it is still little more than a blank piece of paper. We urgently need to grasp the issue and to make progress if Britain is to show the leadership of which it is capable in this area.
	Certain aspects of new clause 8 are good. The requirement to report to Parliament is an important improvement to the process, but that should not be undertaken every three years: there should be an annual report to Parliament so that we can take account of the progress made. We all know from the evidence we gather as individual Members of Parliament that this is a fast-moving technology, and the current technology is significantly further forward than it was just a year ago. A requirement to report to Parliament only every three years does not give us the opportunity to take account of such progress.

Simon Hughes: I do not dissent from the specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, would not an even better form of conducting our business be for Parliament to have an annual energy debate every year, just as we have annual defence debates and suchlike, so that we could review our whole energy policy? We should ensure that we do not just go from a five-year or a 10-year energy White Paper, or energy policy, without keeping it under review and make the changes on the way that the country would expect.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We seem to have a new Ministry every year, and a review, White Paper or consultation every year, so we should at least have an annual debate led by the Secretary of State to discuss the whole energy picture.
	On the specific issue of the emissions performance standard, on which the Minister, understandably, spent so much of her speech, our concern is that the Government will create precisely the fear among investors that they want to avoid. The Minister talks about removing the uncertainty, but the uncertainty is already there. Subsection (3) of new clause 8 says:
	"A report under subsection (1) must...include a review of whether, having regard to the other matters contained in the report, any government policies should be revised and, if so, why"-
	that is, essentially, whether an EPS needs to be introduced. Speaking at the Coal UK conference earlier this week, the Energy Minister in the other House, Lord Hunt, said:
	"A rolling review process, which is planned to report by 2018, will consider the appropriate regulatory and financial framework to further drive the move to clean coal. in the event that CCS is not on track to become technically or economically viable, an appropriate regulatory approach for managing emissions from coal power stations will be needed."
	We have there a tacit acceptance that an EPS is hanging over the industry as a sword of Damocles. In a letter that the Minister has sent to many Members of Parliament-it appears not yet to have found its way to my Conservative colleagues, but I am sure that that is due to postal delays-she tries to reassure MPs by saying:
	"Such changes could include introducing an EPS once some experience of CCS has been gained."
	The EPS is hanging over the industry, so the doubt is already there. In the boardrooms of Essen, Madrid and elsewhere around the world, people are having to look at the realistic prospect of an EPS being introduced in Britain. At this stage, however, because of the way that the Government have gone about it, those industries do not know whether it will be imposed retrospectively or on new plant, at what level it will be introduced, if it will be imposed on peaking capacity, or if it will be imposed on plant in its start-up phases. An incredible amount of doubt exists, which the Minister's approach has itself created, and that is why we need to go further in providing clarity.

Joan Ruddock: I have made it absolutely clear today that we are providing for CCS to become operational, and that we have a rolling review of that. The companies want to have this opportunity. If they are in any doubt about whether we favour an EPS now, I think that I have made it absolutely clear that we are completely opposed to that, and we will vote against it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not read the letter from the CBI, which says that it is completely opposed, too. That should be enough of an indication as to where industry stands.

Charles Hendry: I understand what the Minister is saying. Key decisions will be made by E.ON in Essen about whether it wishes to go forward with new coal plant at Kingsnorth, should it come through with the project. As a result of new clause 8, it knows that in 2011 the Government could say, "It's not looking as good as we thought-we're now going to have to go down the route of the EPS."  [ Interruption. ] No, the Secretary of State is wrong-the assessment has to be made every three years, so it will happen in 2014 and 2017. In the boardrooms of the companies that are making these decisions, people know that at any point in the next few years Ministers could suddenly say, "Yes, we're going to have an EPS after all", but no clarity has been provided to them about how that standard would be introduced and the consequences that would follow.

John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, who has, not surprisingly, made a much more convincing case than the Minister, and has taken seriously security of supply. Given that subsidies will be an issue in this new technology, and that penalty payments for excess carbon are also an issue, the Government must set targets for the amount of carbon in order to justify the subsidy or the penalty payments, so why are they denying it?

Charles Hendry: As always in such matters, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. What we have is an extremely interwoven web of a range of different issues. Complex decisions will need to be made, but given the Minister's approach, it is less likely that we will secure investment in new coal.

Joan Ruddock: Everything that I have said today about the rolling review and the reporting clause in new clause 8 is predicated on the fact that we believe that CCS will succeed. The companies think that CCS will succeed. There is therefore no reason for them to suspect that we are going to introduce an EPS, because if we succeed, there is no rationale for doing so. It is but a backstop in the event that CCS does not succeed.

Charles Hendry: A company that is allocating hundreds of millions or billions of pounds to new projects must look at the long-term environment in which it is investing. What we are seeking to do, in conjunction with many of the Minister's hon. Friends, is to provide that clarity in the shortest possible time scale. This is about securing investment rather than driving it away. Business is not overwhelmingly concerned about the principle of the EPS but about the level of it-that will determine whether investment is or is not made.

Alan Whitehead: As far as I recall, the hon. Gentleman supported the mechanism that was contained in the carbon budgets system in the Climate Change Act 2008, which provides not only for carbon accounting and budgeting but for a five-yearly review of what is happening, not only on the basis of where we are going but of a review of whether there should be corrections to that course. That does not spread uncertainty, as I am sure that he would agree, because he supported it. Does he not accept that this is a similar mechanism, which, by the way, he should address in terms of what happens with marginal coal plants as the process continues over the years? Does he consider that this system, in sustaining marginal coal plant in the system through the years, may be a better system than the indeterminate approach that he suggests in his proposal?

Charles Hendry: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is a fundamental difference here. We are talking about policies that will help to drive investment decisions, which need to be made in a relatively short period. The people who are making them need to know the long-term scenario in which they are investing and the environmental and financial criteria that will be relevant. If there is no clarity, persuading people in boardrooms in Madrid and Essen will become that much more difficult. What we seek to do-we have broad cross-party agreement on this-is find a way to provide that certainty but at the same time help to deliver on the low-carbon commitments on which we all agree.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman assumes that a change in Government policy would mean the introduction of an EPS or similar mechanism, but there is another danger. The only coal plants likely to be built in the next few years are those that will be subject to the levy and will effectively be subsidised. We may get to a point in 2020 at which the plants have been built but CCS is not working or is not economic, and there is then a real danger of a change in policy, with the Government saying, "We will not go ahead with this, because we have invested so much money in these plants." We could therefore end up with higher emissions in the long run unless there is an EPS from the beginning that would force down the emissions or mean that the plant would not proceed.

Charles Hendry: One concern is that the Bill states that the levy may in due course be used for retrofitting. It does not state that there is an automatic right for it to be so used. Although the Minister has said today that it could be, there is no legal basis for her words in this House being used in a court in years to come. It is the words printed in the Bill that will be used. Accordingly, an element of doubt will remain. People will say, "Yes, I may get the levy for the first 300 MW, but what about for the next 900 or 1,200 MW, or however much more there will be?" Companies will say that that is not guaranteed, so we need to consider what the likely framework is and how we can give them the assurance that they need.
	What we want is an emissions performance standard that helps to give investors certainty, so that when they come to make their decisions they know exactly what the investment criteria will be. That is why I believe-

Joan Ruddock: rose-

Charles Hendry: I will make a bit of progress, and then of course I will give way to the Minister when she has heard me develop my argument a little more.  [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that I am being a bit churlish. I would hate to be in any way churlish, so I give way to the Minister.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that industry requires certainty, so I invite him to provide us with the evidence given to him by companies that have contacted him to argue in favour of an EPS at this time.

Charles Hendry: What companies have told us is that they are concerned about an EPS that is too high and that would deter investment. They accept, however, that an EPS set at the right level could help to provide certainty and drive things forward. That is why I believe new clause 15 is very much better than new clause 8. As always in these matters, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who has campaigned on them for a very long time and has a tremendous understanding of them. I am glad that he and we were able to reach agreement on a new clause that we could support.
	The critical point is that new clause 15 would put in place a time scale. It is a tight one, suggesting that proposals should be established for consultation within six months and confirmed and laid before Parliament within 12 months. In the time scale in which decisions would have to be made, businesses in Britain or elsewhere would know exactly what would be expected of them for some decades to come. That degree of clarity would be extremely helpful to them.
	New clause 15 would also provide clarity about what factors should be taken into consideration. It mentions evidence from the Committee on Climate Change, affordability and other issues affecting consumers, which we should bear in mind, and security of supply.

Desmond Turner: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about giving the market a clear signal would carry some weight if such a signal were contained within the new clause that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) have proposed. However, it leaves the EPS so open-ended that it could mean absolutely anything. It could even encompass the emission levels of a current plant. Without having some definition of what the EPS would be, the market still would not have a clear signal.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is right, but we were determined not to put that figure in the Bill, because that would be counter-productive in the long term. No decision on new coal will be taken in this country in the next six months, and no new investment decisions are likely in that time. Under new clause 15, within those six months industry would know the recommended figure and whether it would be enforced within the following six months. Within the time scale for new investment decisions, there would be complete clarity for investors so that they could make the appropriate decisions.

David Anderson: One of the points made by people who prefer the market approach is that the market is better than the state because it will always find innovative ways to do things. We heard that argument this morning in the Energy and Climate Change Committee. If that is the case, what does the market have to be worried about? If the EPS is not in place, it will find innovative ways of addressing the matter. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe companies can do that, will he tell the House which companies they are, as my hon. Friend the Minister asked?

Charles Hendry: Markets work better if people understand the framework within which they are investing. If a big cloud of doubt is hanging over them, it is very difficult for them to make a rational long-term decision. We are saying that within six months, confirmed within a year, we would provide greater clarity. That is how we can provide support, advice and help to potential investors.

Colin Challen: The hon. Gentleman is a highly respected member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, but on this occasion his arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese. Will he confirm or deny the story in  The Guardian this morning suggesting that although he and his Front-Bench colleagues will troop through the Division Lobby in support of the new clause, his Back Benchers are on a one-line whip?

Charles Hendry: It is a great shame that Tim Webb did not check the story with us before he wrote it, as we could have told him that it was without foundation. I am not aware of a single colleague who has said that they want to be away tonight because this issue is inconvenient to them.  [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may have heard of them, in which case he may wish to name them. As far as we are concerned, some people will be away doing other business that was planned a significant time ago, but the story in  The Guardian is without foundation.
	I wish to address some of arguments the Minister used in the letter that she sent to her Labour colleagues. She wrote that an EPS
	"could mean no investment in new coal at all thus making the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology impossible in the UK."
	That is absolute nonsense. The levy will pay for the demonstration projects and there is scope for it to pay for retrofitting 100 per cent. of the plant's capacity, so that all those bidding under the CCS competitions would know that all their extra costs would be covered. The Minister paints a picture of what the EPS would do that takes no account of the level at which it might be set after further consultation. She writes:
	"There is no EPS anywhere in the world that operates along the lines of NC6."
	However, the important new clause is new clause 15, which addresses the concerns by highlighting the range of different issues that would be taken into account in deciding the level at which the EPS would be set.
	I am afraid that the Minister is rather partial in the quotations that she uses. She has undoubtedly used the truth, but I am not sure that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Her letter quotes the CCC as stating that it
	"does not yet have a view on which measures would best tackle the risks."
	She leaves out the section in which the CCC states that it
	"believes that all should be seriously considered in the near term",
	which must include an EPS.

Joan Ruddock: rose-

Charles Hendry: I hope the Minister will tell me that that was an oversight.

Joan Ruddock: Not at all-if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me give that quotation in full in my speech.

Charles Hendry: I have to say that more MPs will have read her letter than heard her speech. Looking at the number who are present in the Chamber to take part in the debate, there is no doubt that many more will have been swayed by what she tried to tell them in writing. I hope for her sake that more read the letter than heard the speech.
	The Minister also expresses a view that an EPS could cover gas as well as coal, which of course is true. Indeed, both she and the Secretary of State have referred to the fact that both coal and gas would be likely to be involved in CCS. However, investors in gas-equally as much as those involved in coal-need to know what will happen in years to come. Leaving things so open could drive away the crucial investment that we need in new gas capacity in this country, because not only coal will be affected.
	In conclusion, an EPS, set at the right level, encourages investment, because it gives the clarity that investors need on long-term policy making. The Government need to give long-term clarity to investors in coal with carbon capture, just as they have done for investors in nuclear and renewables. The latter already have such clarity in the shape of the policy framework and the funding regimes, which ought to be applied to coal with carbon capture. New clause 15 is proposed by a broad coalition, and I hope that when the Minister reflects on this debate, she is prepared to reconsider her position on it.

Gavin Strang: It is worth registering that there is an overwhelming consensus in the House that we need to take effective action in response to the threat of climate change. The statistics issued by the Department for Energy and Climate Change are very interesting in that they emphasise the importance of the energy and electricity supply in that context. The figures from 1990 to 2008 are striking because they show that energy supply and transport account for well over half of total emissions, and that emissions from energy supply are more than 50 per cent. more than for transport. The Government are right to believe that energy supply is at the centre of where we need to take action to tackle climate change. The nub of the argument is whether there should be an emissions standard or standards in relation to our power stations. There is a strong case for having more than one emissions standard, and I am of that view, and a case for more effective regulation of our power stations in future.
	Government new clause 8 is constructive and takes us forward. Proposed subsection 2(a) states that the report will tell us
	"whether use of carbon capture and storage technology in generation of electricity on a commercial scale has been, or when it will be, successfully demonstrated".
	We should not forget that. It is implicit that such technology may not be successfully demonstrated and that any emissions reductions may not be cost-effective. Of course we can have CCS in some form or other, but the question is whether we can develop it effectively to reduce emissions sufficiently significantly-by more than 50 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) indicated-and whether that will be cost-effective. We should not lose sight of the fact that that is where we are.
	There is a consensus in the House that we should go down the road of providing financial support for CCS. That is fine, and it is important that we acknowledge that Government new clause 8 is constructive because it provides for a report. However, it is essentially retrospective, in the sense that we will always be looking back and seeing what happened, which is very different in principle from setting out standards that will apply in future. Of course, there could be different standards for new coal, old coal, gas and, indeed, in theory, for every single power station. The problem is sufficiently important that we must drive down emissions for new power stations and old.
	I shall just touch on the two new clauses that attract my interest because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for drawing my attention to the fact that the proposal for an actual emissions standard that must be met is a Liberal new clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) for his tremendous commitment to taking action on climate change and for the amount of work he has put into the matter in recent years. He may disagree, but new clause 6 is far better than new clause 15. New clause 6 is similar to the measure he proposed in Committee. New clause 15 refers only to new power stations. I am not suggesting that we ignore them, but that measure envisages a hugely different degree of intervention and regulation.
	I was attracted to the formulation of my hon. Friend's proposal in Committee and to new clause 6 because they emphasise the plural. In theory, we could have one EPS for every station in the country, and every station would have to be below it. My view is that it would be more practical to have different emissions standards for different classes of power station. That is another reason why I find new clause 6 more attractive than new clause 15, but it would nevertheless be an advance if it were possible to win support for the latter.
	Again, there is a consensus not only that CCS should be encouraged, but that we should be prepared to put quite substantial sums of money in the way of the companies. The companies that will provide the framework for research and development are large, transnational companies. However, we must try to ensure that we get value for money. It would not be unreasonable for the heads of some of those large companies to say, "Look, we want as much money as we can get with no strings attached," given that they are in business and that they want to get on with research, investment and, of course, making a private profit.

John Redwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must have targets and standards in order to allocate subsidy and penalties?

Gavin Strang: That is an interesting point, but I will not respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman because I do not have time. However, I do not see the logic of the argument that setting a standard will somehow deter investment, because the reality is that companies want a rough idea and framework for the future. He is criticising the new proposals and saying that we should not support them because they do not give figures, but, obviously, their strength lies in the fact that there will be a year's consultation and discussion, after which the Government can decide on the appropriate EPSs for our various power stations.
	New clauses 15 and 6 are not asking for an awful lot. No one is trying to lay down a prohibitive standard-or standards-that will frighten off investors. We should remember that the investors we are talking about will get large sums in subsidy from the levy towards their research and development.

Phil Willis: If we follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument on new clause 25, having a set date by which companies must have carbon-neutral stations with full CCS would be the best incentive in terms of giving certainty to the market on the delivery of those technologies.

Gavin Strang: I am not knocking new clause 25, and I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman and others say about it; I was trying to concentrate my remarks on the principle of the EPS.
	Finally, the case for publishing the emissions standards within a year has to do with transparency. If we did that, we could have proper dialogue and debate both in Parliament and outside, and real transparency.

Paddy Tipping: Is my right hon. Friend confident that within a year we can correctly define the emissions to a target standard? New CCS will not be up and running within 12 months: it will be far later than that before the technology is proven. Any definition at this stage, or in 12 months, will be premature.

Gavin Strang: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend says, but the standards will not be set in stone. They will not stay the same for the next 10 years. Individual standards will be the standard for the year or three years to which they apply-

Alan Whitehead: That is a recipe for uncertainty.

Gavin Strang: Well, it is less uncertain than zero standards. We are responding too kindly to the understandable position of the transnational companies which want the money without strings attached.

Martin Horwood: I join the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) in giving credit to the Secretary of State and the departmental team for the progress they are making in, for example, tackling climate change and addressing issues such as carbon capture and storage. It is worth casting our minds back to the days before the appointment of the current Secretary of State to a time when we had no Committee on Climate Change, no Climate Change Bill and no feed-in tariffs. We did not even have the expectations that we now have for CCS by the 2020s, and there was limited competition to incentivise it. We should recognise the progress that is being made.
	However, this debate takes place in inauspicious times. According to an opinion poll this morning, there is growing scepticism about the reality of climate change and the anthropogenic causes of it. There is growing scepticism in the media, in newspapers such as the Daily Express, and among those on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, I see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) are breathing down the neck of the hon. Member for Wealden. That kind of scepticism is on the rise, but it is important that we reiterate that the overwhelming scientific consensus is still that climate change is certainly happening and it is overwhelmingly likely that it has man-made causes.
	We also meet in the context of the failure at Copenhagen to agree a rigid international framework for tackling the next phase of carbon emission reductions worldwide. The world's Governments are drinking in the last chance saloon when it comes to tackling climate change in time.
	Other hon. Members have referred to the warnings from the Committee on Climate Change, the newly established Government advisers on this subject. It says:
	"Progress in reducing emissions in the five years before the first budget period"-
	the first carbon budget period-
	"both overall and in most sectors, was far slower than now required to meet budget commitments. A step change in pace of reduction is essential."
	The committee's report refers specifically to some of the issues that we are discussing today. Of the power sector it says:
	"Investment in low-carbon generation is risky and may not be pursued sufficiently under current market arrangements."
	In other words, the current market arrangements are those prevailing under the European emissions trading scheme.

John Redwood: How serious do the Liberal Democrats think the possible shortage after 2016 will be, given the number of power stations being retired and the absence of new ones? What would he do about that?

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is an issue that might in the end lead to derogations from European directives to keep aged power stations online or to allow more importation of gas, which would not be a satisfactory outcome. We certainly need action now, not only to promote CCS but to promote greater seriousness about renewables. For example, we need a stronger feed-in tariff for renewable energy and many other such actions to address the issue that he is talking about.
	The Committee on Climate Change also said in its report that the current market arrangements-in other words, those prevailing under the European trading scheme at the moment-are insufficient and leading to a perception of risk in investment in low-carbon generation. It states:
	"A new framework to support investment in CCS generation is required."
	It also talks about reviews, as the Minister did. However, it mentions
	"financial support for roll-out, limits on generation from conventional coal beyond the early 2020s, and timely commencement of a second demonstration competition".
	I suspect from the Minister's remarks that she may have misunderstood the Committee's advice. That does not mean that we should wait until 2018, 2019 or 2020 to do something about an emissions standard or a limit on generation. We have to give signals that we intend to take such action right now-as early as possible. In fact, the Committee is even more specific about that later in its report, when it says:
	"It is likely that there will be a period where CCS is deemed viable but where the carbon price is insufficiently high to cover the CCS cost penalty. In these circumstances, a successor support mechanism would be required. An early signal that such a mechanism would be introduced as appropriate should be provided to reduce risks for investors in the first set of partially fitted CCS plants."
	That does not mean an early signal once we have discovered that it is too late; it means an early signal now.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman clearly misunderstands the committee's report. It has argued that we need to indicate that we will be prepared to use the mechanism for retrofitting; we have done exactly that and it is in this Bill. We have responded precisely to what the Committee said. If he reads the whole report, he will see that it speaks of the need for the review to conclude in around 2020. Our review will conclude two years earlier and also contains the interim reporting stages in new clause 8.

Martin Horwood: I am sorry to disagree with the Minister, but I do not think that that clear signal is being given at the moment. In answer to the hon. Member for Wealden, the Minister talked about how an emissions performance standard might undermine the whole investment market, and the hon. Gentleman gave a very good response to that point- [ Interruption. ] I do give credit to Conservative Front Benchers occasionally. They know about business and investment, if nothing else-[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I withdraw that uncharitable remark. We need those early signals now in order to create the investment framework. The truth is that businesses respond to clear long-term signals. The investment decisions in CCS have to be made now, and they are being made all over the world.

John Robertson: I do not know whether I necessarily agree that the Conservatives understand business. They certainly do not understand the CBI, which seems to know a bit more about this issue. How many research and development projects set themselves interim targets? It is a gradual slope up towards-we hope-100 per cent. sequestration. Putting targets in could hinder development and put companies off research and development, as the CBI has pointed out. That does not mean that if the Government-

Desmond Turner: rose-

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, but I cannot keep taking interventions. I must at least reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson).
	That does not mean that if the frameworks and signals are given by the Government and regulation, businesses will not respond to them. No business wants to be constrained, but when constraints are set clearly and well in advance, they will respond.

John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, but I need to make some progress.
	There are signals from other sources that the current market arrangements are insufficient. We have the European emissions trading scheme. The Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, commissioned-well, requested-an important report from the National Audit Office, which reported last March. It stated:
	"The range of uncertainties associated with Phase III"-
	of the ETS-
	"means that no forward price for Phase III allowances has been established. It is through establishing a long-term stable carbon market with forward prices that the EU ETS should incentivise long-term investment in low carbon technologies. Until this is created the EU ETS is unlikely to be demonstrably achieving its objectives."
	It concluded:
	"The absence of long-term carbon price signals has a particular effect on some key sectors, such as the power sector, because of the long asset lives associated with new investments."
	We even have academic support.

Desmond Turner: rose-

Martin Horwood: I happily give way to a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee.

Desmond Turner: There is one flaw in the argument about the signals for investment that an EPS can provide. If we are worried that too strict an EPS will disincentivise investment, surely to incentivise investment, it would have to be a very lax EPS, which will get us nowhere.

Martin Horwood: I hate to say it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding how a market works. Constraints can drive investment in different directions. That is the whole basis of the idea behind a carbon price and an ETS. A counter example is what happened in Norway, which, not having our opportunity to be part of an ETS and to have an EPS, introduced a different incentive-a carbon tax. The result was not to stop investment in those technologies, but actually to drive investment, and it has put Statoil-the Norwegian energy company-at the absolute forefront of those technologies worldwide.
	I would like to mention a fantastic institution situated close to my constituency. The International Energy Agency greenhouse gas research and development programme, based at Stoke Orchard near Cheltenham, has credited that carbon tax and those price signals with driving investment by private industry, including Statoil and others, in these technologies, and with putting Statoil and others at the forefront of that technology.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that investment decisions are not just about whether we build new things, but about whether we keep existing things open? Does he also accept that after 2015-16, about 10 coal-fired power plants will continue to operate on the basis of fitting scrubbers to their chimneys under the large plant directive? We ought to ask whether those plants should continue to exist abated in the 2020s. Does he consider that they are necessary to balance the system, or does he think that they should close immediately after 2015-16? Furthermore, does he believe that a three-year review, at the time when those decisions to close or open are being made, might be the best method of ensuring that those plants know that they are going towards carbon sequestration and that they can stay open for a time as marginal suppliers in order to balance out the system and keep that new investment coming in?

Martin Horwood: I might have lost track of some of the questions in that intervention, but broadly speaking I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right-he is expert on these issues. Retrofitting and the attitude to the maintenance of existing plant are obviously critical, and the signals sent by proposals for an EPS would be important in achieving that. The flaw in the Government's position, and in the Minister's constant use of words such as "aim" and "expectation", is that they do not give that concrete signal. They give the encouragement to investors that they might be able to exploit the loophole, whereas the Committee on Climate Change has made very clear its expectation, and has advised the Government, that unabated coal power should form almost no part of our energy generation after the 2020s, regardless of whether CCS is economic or not.

Joan Ruddock: I have made it absolutely clear today that we agree with the independent Committee on Climate Change. That is a fact. We are giving the clearest signal to industry that we will provide an investment framework that will enable it to invest in a way that can be profitable, but is at the same time carbon constrained. That is the best framework that exists in the world, and it is the only financial mechanism being provided in the world to achieve that. I cannot think of anything better, or that could provide greater certainty, to offer industry.

Martin Horwood: Except that we have a range of options based on emissions performance standards that absolutely would give greater certainty. Earlier the Minister asked for one example of a business that was asking for such certainty, and I can give her that example: Progressive Energy, one of the major investors in carbon capture and storage technology. Progressive Energy says:
	"It would be extremely unwise to rely on the carbon signals coming from the Emissions Trading Scheme to ensure that investment is made to limit CO2 emissions from coal generating plant...an EPS has real value in providing a market signal against which investment decisions can be made."
	If not an emissions performance standard, what is the Government's suggestion for something concrete that we can put in the Bill? We have had no alternative suggestion, and now we have a range of new clauses. The Government's new clause 8 is a welcome response to the pressure that they have been put under on the issue, but it is all about reporting, and not about actually doing something. We have a range of new clauses, from the Conservatives, from the Liberal Democrats and from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). They have been criticised in turn, for being too specific or not specific enough, but surely one of them must be acceptable to the Government as a way forward.

Brian Binley: May I take the hon. Gentleman back a little? Has he talked to industry about investment in this area? If so, will he tell us who he has talked to and what they said?

Martin Horwood: I have lost count of the number of private companies that I have talked to in my role as shadow Environment Minister for the Liberal Democrats. I have talked to and been in correspondence with a considerable number of companies, including Progressive Energy, as well as with many academics and many people in business. As an officer of the all-party group on corporate responsibility, I meet private companies all the time. However, as I said before, my experience in business is that business sectors rarely set out to have themselves regulated and constrained more-that is simply not how business works-but they will respond to those regulations and constraints, albeit only when they are given clearly. As the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, said eloquently from the Conservative Front Bench, only when those signals are given clearly and unambiguously will business respond adequately.

Brian Binley: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman to answer my question again, bearing in mind that my Front-Bench colleague gave an answer to it, and that I know that he has spoken to those in industry, and also what they have said.

Martin Horwood: I do not think that that refutes my point-that businesses never set out to regulate themselves-but anyway, we have been round that course at least three times, so let us move on.
	New clause 25 is the most robust and specific of the three new clauses on offer. It would make it absolutely clear that an EPS must be introduced, and it would set a clear target of 75 per cent. for emissions captured, compared with the equivalent had CCS not been fitted.

Colin Challen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I will give way for the last time, because I really ought to leave time for other Members to make speeches.

Colin Challen: I have a short question. I just want to know what the basis for that calculation is. How does it tie in with the carbon budgets and all the other things that we are doing?

Martin Horwood: That calculation is realistic, given that the current technologies in many places are already delivering about 85 per cent. capture. Indeed, we discussed a proposal in Committee for a target of 90 per cent. capture. That was not supported, so we are trimming a little and trying to see at what level we can command support from the Government. The calculation is led by the science, yet it is an acceptance that we are perhaps having to moderate our ambitions a little, but- [ Interruption. ] Sorry, it was the Environmental Audit Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a fellow member, that advocated an emissions performance standard of around 90 per cent. We are going below that, which is the very least that the science demands-and indeed, the level would be increased in time.
	Rather less robust is new clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are perfectly happy to support. Equally, it would mandate an emissions performance standard, but rather less specifically. Then we have the most flexible proposal, or the weakest, depending on one's point of view: new clause 15, which has the virtue of being supported by those on the Conservative Front Bench. Compromising on comprise, we are equally happy to support that, too, if it is the best that we can get today.
	There is clearly some opposition to an emissions performance standard. E.ON has provided us with a helpful brief, which says:
	"from our perspective as an investor in new generating capacity...an EPS creates new risks which will substantially increase the discount rates we apply to new investments, and ultimately determine whether we proceed with an investment or not."
	That is quite a mild rebuttal. It does not say that it will not proceed; that would be foolish, of course, as its investors would query whether it was sensible. E.ON also says in its brief that it recognises that an emissions performance standard can have a useful role in defining what individual new fossil plants will have to achieve in terms of CO2 abatement.
	I have already cited Statoil in Norway, which has invested in the Sleipner project, as well as in the Algerian project at In Salah, and in Snøhvit. That has all been driven by the market intervention of the Norwegian carbon tax. Other economic incentives have driven investment in other parts of the world, including the potential for enhanced oil recovery in some places. That is clearly not happening in this country, however.
	A further reason for the Government to clarify the situation is the legal uncertainty to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred in Committee. This relates to the European Union's view on whether an emissions performance standard would even be legal. I want to refer to the report by the legal organisation Client Earth, which outlines a scenario in which we hesitate and do not place the position beyond doubt in law, thereby ending up in a situation in which
	"the post-combustion CCS demonstration project is deemed ...to be 'not on track'".
	In such a case, a subsequent emissions performance standard would become highly controversial. The energy companies could then take the British Government to law to challenge the legality of any UK CO2 emissions performance standard.
	Client Earth does not think that the standard would be unlawful but states that it is
	"concerned that the European Commission has proposed an amendment to the definition of 'permit' in Directive 2008/1/EC (the IPPC Directive) as part of a process to recast the IPPC Directive that is currently going through the European Parliament. The European Commission's proposed amendment, although categorised by the European Commission as minor, could remove the ability of the UK to introduce the CO2 EPS. The UK should take all steps to resist the European Commission's proposed amendment and ensure that the scopes of the IPPC Directive and Directive 2003/87/EC (the EU ETS Directive) remain mutually exclusive."
	It concludes:
	"To resolve this legal uncertainty the UK should now amend the Energy Bill currently going through Parliament to include a UK CO2 EPS and notify the European Commission of its intention to rely upon Article 193 of the TFEU",
	which I think is the Lisbon treaty. I realise that the very mention of the Lisbon treaty could cause apoplexy on the Conservative Benches, but it might be coming to our aid in this particular instance, because it should force the Government to resolve the legal issue.
	In Committee, and today, the Minister of State made some quite alarming responses, implying that no action was likely in connection with introducing an emissions performance standard, even as a fallback, until after 2018. I would be grateful if she could confirm whether the Government intend to introduce such a standard at any stage before that. This kind of uncertainty creates other risks, and I want to ask her another specific question. How secure is the funding even for the competition project? Let us imagine for a moment that the Labour Government are re-elected and enjoy another Parliament in power. In those circumstances, how secure would the investment in this project be, if the Treasury were to say, "Actually, the rest of the world is so far ahead of us now that it isn't worth our while spending this money in the UK. We'll simply end up buying Chinese technology." Would the Minister care to intervene on me?

Joan Ruddock: I would be happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. The information on the competition will be available to Members a short time from now. There is no question about the funding, because it is part of the levy system. We have made it absolutely clear that the new levy arrangements will cover the winner of the competition. In addition, there will be another three carbon capture projects on coal-fired stations.

Martin Horwood: I notice that the Minister has not replied to my first question.

Joan Ruddock: The truth is that I said repeatedly in my earlier remarks that the reporting regime would begin with a report no later than in 2012, then again in 2015 and once again in 2018. If the hon. Gentleman read the clause, he would see that that if a conclusion were reached-based on all the considerations that he wants to be taken into account at each stage and on advice from bodies such as the Climate Change Committee-that we were not making sufficient progress, so CCS would not provide the answer to our decarbonisation goals, it would of course be possible to consider an emissions performance standard at any point. I stress again that the Climate Change Committee has itself said that the EPS is but one of four measures that it believes might appropriately be taken if CCS were not successful. That is why we have a rolling review-to make that judgment.

Martin Horwood: I have to say that that is one of the vaguest and most non-committal statements that we could expect to be made. Let me quote once again one of my favourite sources, the International Energy Agency greenhouse gas programme. Its report on worldwide investment supports the view already expressed that the rest of the planet is getting on with this. It says:
	"Considerable work on CCS is being conducted throughout the world and these efforts are growing rapidly. Many scientists, engineers and geologists are now devoting their efforts to all aspects of CCS."
	It also says:
	"The Canadian province of Alberta alone is planning to spend C$2 billion on new CCS projects. The Australian government has established its low-emissions coal initiative with funding of AU$500 million and has announced an international carbon capture institute funded at AU$100 million. Together, these and other countries are funding a diverse array of projects on every aspect of CCS and this funding is expected to grow."
	The Minister asked about capture as well as storage projects. The three fully operational large-scale projects that I mentioned have storage-they include capture, of course, because carbon cannot be stored without having been captured-but while it is true that they do not capture from coal-fired generating power stations, they include capture from mixtures of gases from industrial processes.
	The IEA report includes a list of dozens of projects worldwide-dozens of storage projects, but also dozens of capture projects. The truth is that more progress is being made in Norway, the United States, China, Brazil, Canada, Australia and Algeria on projects that include not only capture and storage, but transportation as well. Long pipelines are already in place and there is huge investment. The reason for it is obvious-that the prize of developing successful commercial-scale carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power stations will be fantastic. It presents a wonderful opportunity and for whichever countries or companies crack it, unbelievable numbers of jobs and revenue will follow from the successful exploitation of these technologies. While we hesitate, the reality is, sadly, that we may have missed the boat, so we will end up buying in this technology from China or the United States, which will cost the UK economy even more, because we will be expensively retrofitting something that we have not developed ourselves.
	That is the unfortunate scenario that we face. We have been here before on renewable energy: despite this country's massive resources, we have ended up being overtaken by many other countries. We should have had a natural advantage in carbon capture and storage because of the North sea and its related oil and gas technology, but we are in danger of squandering it. The amending provisions offer an opportunity to try to catch up.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows that my argument is that those same amending provisions totally undermine the investment programme that we have set out. I remind him that no other country in the world has a statutory funding mechanism, as is proposed in the Bill. He mentions various projects, but I do not believe that a single one of them includes capture, transportation and storage all within the same project on the scale that we envisage-capturing from coal-fired generation. He will not find a single example that combines all those elements, or a single example of a statutory funding package. He quotes the billions of investment, so I remind him that we are looking here at a potential of £9.5 billion being raised through the levy mechanism. That is an unprecedented amount-again, not found anywhere else in the world.

Martin Horwood: When we are discussing an investment designed to achieve a certain goal, it is easy enough to say that it is impossible to produce any examples of anyone anywhere in the world who has achieved that goal. The truth is, however, that there are dozens of capture projects-some relating to coal, some to gas, and some to other industrial processes-dozens of storage projects, and hundreds of miles of pipeline. All the individual technologies are being developed. Of course it is true that we have not yet achieved the goal for which everyone is aiming-that is rather self-evident-but every other Government in the world have provided much more encouragement, which is why those projects are all up and running.

Paddy Tipping: Notwithstanding all his bluster, can the hon. Gentleman name a single coal capture station project in the world that has been completed?

Martin Horwood: Let me again cite the IEA greenhouse gas R & D programme. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive my pronunciation, but coal-related CCS projects include Cato/Castor/Brindisi, Ciuden, Calide, Mountaineer-I have to say that I do not know the locations of all these-ZeroGen Phase 1, Boundary Dam, Stanwell, FutureGen, GreenGen Phase 1, ZeroGen Phase 2 and Nordylland, which I think is Norwegian. The UK competition is also mentioned.
	There are, in fact, plenty of projects around the world trying to exploit that technology. Of course it is true that we have not yet developed fully fledged commercial-scale capture of carbon from a coal-fired power station. That is what we are all trying to work towards, and we would not be having this debate if it had already been achieved. I think that this is a rather tortuous and superfluous argument.
	The opportunity exists for a clear signal to be given to markets and investors in the United Kingdom, which would avoid the scenario that I have described, in which we end up buying the technology from abroad, and ultimately costing the UK economy more.

Paddy Tipping: rose-

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, but I will not give way again. I have already given way many times; I have been very tolerant.
	Let me briefly commend amendment 1. It is clearly nonsensical to impose a levy designed to combat carbon emissions on technologies that do not produce any carbon emissions. The Minister has tried to mount a defence of the imposition of a levy on renewable technologies as well, but that would have a serious consequence. At the margin-and some renewable technologies are at the margin of viability; investment decisions may hang on fine financial judgments-the imposition of such a levy could stop renewable energy projects proceeding. I urge the Minister to reconsider her attitude to the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench speeches have taken just over an hour and a half, and we are still dealing with the first group of amendments. We have barely two hours left for consideration of the remaining amendments. I cannot comment on that; it is not my job to interfere in a rattling good debate, and I realise that Front Benchers have been provoked by interventions, which is always a feature of good-quality debate. Nevertheless, Back Benchers might try to be a little more concise so that we can enable every Member to speak, and make some progress.

Alan Simpson: I intend to speak primarily about new clauses 6, 15 and 25. I shall seek to press new clause 15 to a vote at the end of the debate.
	I do not think that the issue is the detail of what is or is not in an emissions performance standard. The question is whether or not we want a regulated energy market. Although my personal preference was for the clarity of new clause 6, I think that new clause 15 is capable of commanding the most support and consensus. Certainly the groups with whom we have worked outside the House have been happy with us to proceed with it on that basis.
	I want to distance myself philosophically from a number of the comments that have been made about the need to make progress before setting standards. We would not be at all happy if someone trying to sell a house told us that it was foundation-ready. We have moved beyond the stage of messing around. All the great global controversies have arisen when people have proceeded with developments willy-nilly only to ask when catastrophe has struck, "Why were there no clear foundations to what they thought they were doing?" The people responsible should be imprisoned for allowing such developments to go ahead.
	It seems almost nonsensical to me that we are having this debate. Every one of us could walk out of the Chamber today and on to the high street and buy a fridge or a freezer, and we would expect to know its energy rating. When people buy houses now, they expect to know the property's energy performance rating. We are saying in advance that post-2016 all new housing will be of eco-housing standard, so we stack standards ahead of the game-we define the game.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Simpson: Let me finish my little opening rant first.
	In response to those who say that setting standards would somehow deter investment, I would refer to a fascinating seminar held this morning by the all-party group on social science and policy. It was addressed by the head of Deutsche Bank's global climate change research unit, who said that if we put together transparency, certainty and longevity, we provide what investors are looking for. He went on to say that investors in renewable energy ought to be differentiated from energy companies. And it is worth noting that many energy companies have said, "We don't like transparency. We like to do deals behind closed doors. That is how we can get the greatest arm-lock to lever resources out of Governments, taxpayers or customers."
	Transparency is not the flavour of the month for existing energy companies, so it does not surprise me that they would not welcome the introduction of an emissions performance standard. For everyone else, however, from citizens to Government to investors, it is a no-brainer that that is a good idea. That is why we should address this issue within a framework that requires the Government of the day to come back within a 12-month period with a scheme that sets out the details of where we go from wherever we are, so that this would not be the end of the game.
	The people from Deutsche Bank said to us this morning, "Look at the object lessons to be learned from Germany, where the introduction of feed-in tariffs has been followed by a series of reviews. That has happened because the regulatory framework drove the agenda for change." It drove the investments and innovation processes, and that is why they were able to go through a series of review processes that pushed way ahead of where the initial framework had envisaged that they could get to when they started out.
	It seems to me that we get in a panic about power stations. The reason for that might be that when the energy sector was deregulated we gave it the powers to create the current oligopoly, which sees itself as beyond public control and accountability.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman's little rant has reminded me of a point that was made to me by people working in the refrigeration industry. Regulation to ban chlorofluorocarbons because of the damage to the ozone layer was introduced before the industry came up with the solution. It was driven to find a solution because regulation was already in place.

Alan Simpson: Absolutely, and we could broaden that point. The same sort of debate took place in California when the state wanted to introduce tighter controls on emissions from vehicles. At the time, the motor industry said, "This will kill the industry. There will be no new investment," but California had the courage to say, "Get lost. If you want to be a player on our roads, you've got to play by the standards we set."
	I remember days during my childhood when schools were closed because of pea-soup fogs, and we all had to walk home because the buses were cancelled. Fortunately, the Government of the day introduced clean air Acts. They did not introduce tradeable breathing quotas, or personal soot allowances; they introduced clean air legislation that told industry that it had to clean up its act.

Colin Challen: I am thoroughly enjoying this rant. My hon. Friend may wish to cite examples of established technologies to aid his argument, but what he proposes is not really the way to do it. Where were the standards governing fridges when they were first introduced around the time of, or just after, the first world war? Standards develop, because they must react to what we find. We cannot say that projects should have to be subject to standards when we do not yet know whether these things will even work.

Alan Simpson: No, the truth is that we must accept that we have what we have today; we cannot turn the technology clock back and we will have to work out how we deal with retrofitting and setting performance standards for the running of what we have. A range of low-carbon, hybrid vehicles are on the market and we accept that that is the new standard. We also accept that older vehicles have to have an annual MOT which sets a standard defining what is roadworthy.
	This new clause puts a duty on the House-it is not a permission-to introduce a standards framework. What should or should not be in that framework and the different levels at which the standards should be applied to existing plant and new types of plant should be argued out within the year of that process. The House should not allow itself to get distracted by trying to anticipate those details ahead of the time period that is supposed to be set aside for that process.
	In summary, the new clause provides for the introduction of a framework of emissions performance standards that will apply to all new power stations; sets out a clear timetable; acknowledges that decisions need to be based on a recognition of the advice that comes from the Committee on Climate Change; and provides for account to be taken of the impact of any policy changes on energy prices and energy security. All those things were built in to try to incorporate a recognition of concerns that were raised by Ministers and by the industry in response to the initial consultation.

Alan Whitehead: I, too, am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend's presentation. If it is his intention that new clause 15 replace new clause 8-I presume that it would do were it to be passed by this House-an emissions performance standard would apply only to "new electricity generation plant." That is what new clause 15 states, but that provision was not in his original proposal. Does he, thus, accept that existing generation plants would be unabated and move into the 2020s with no emissions performance standard applying to them whatever?

Alan Simpson: That was one of my misgivings about the compromise that we reached on new clause 15-I always say to people that I am permanently undone by my excess of reasonableness. It would have been better had we stuck to new clause 6, but in order to get something through that commits us to a statutory framework, I can live with the notion-and so can groups outside this place-that we can work within what we have in new clause 15 and come back, as we will have to do, to address how we retrofit what already exists.
	I wish to run through the arguments that have been floated against the proposal. The biggest scare story has been that any standards framework will deter new investment. It was helpful to hear Deutsche Bank trashing that this morning. It made the point that when energy companies talk about new investment they will invariably come to the banks to raise the finance and it is the banks that are saying that they want TLC-transparency, longevity and certainty. That is the framework that they see as helpful in setting an emissions performance standard.
	The issue about investment being driven elsewhere has been raised. Probably the best example from our shores that I can cite is the decision made by the company formed by BP and Rio Tinto-this relates to the projects of their hydrogen energy company. The original proposal was to build a power station in Peterhead, Scotland, but that was withdrawn and the decision was taken to build the power station in California, where a requirement for an emissions performance standard is already in place. The company was saying to us that if the combination of finance and regulation is put in place, that delivers the certainty that allows investors to invest. It seems nonsensical to claim that to have standards would deter investment rather than the contrary, which is that it would give the certainty to investment that investors are looking for.

Michael Weir: Is there not another issue? The Minister has said that the difference for investment in this country is that £9.5 billion will be available through the levy that is not available elsewhere. That is a powerful incentive for big companies that want to build carbon capture and storage and show that it can work-and then, perhaps, take advantage of that elsewhere in the world.

Alan Simpson: That is exactly the point. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said earlier, if the Government are making a commitment on such a scale-£9.5 billion-worth of investment support-why are we not placing performance conditions on the sector? It seems to me that if we take one step back and address the performance of the sector to date, what we have is another example of chronic market failure and a sector that is being driven by short-term calculations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on "Channel 4 News" just a week or so ago, the profit margins that are now being enjoyed by the energy sector are at-I think that these were his words-"pretty much record levels."
	When such largesse is being handed out, why on earth are we afraid to place conditions on it so that the outcomes for the UK economy and the UK environment are massively and substantially enhanced? The Government should be willing to place conditions on how we support industry rather than throwing money out of the window in the hope that those companies that have held the country in this arm-lock will behave differently from how they have behaved in the past. Many in the sector are already arguing that to set conditions would be a technology driver and would force the pace of innovation and change. We should not be afraid to address that.
	The second argument against the introduction of EPS is that CCS is somehow the answer. CCS will be applied to four pilot projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) was right to say that it might have great potential, but it also carries huge uncertainties. I am not certain whether I believe that it can deliver, but, at this stage, it is an unavoidable gamble that we have to take. However, we need a plan B. To say that somehow standards of performance run counter to that process, rather than reinforcing the urgency of the upward trend, is to miss the point completely and surrenders to the notion that we are held hostage to an ever increasing set of demands for public or customer finance to try to make something work when it might well not. This is an extra safety net rather than an obstacle on the road to progress.

Paddy Tipping: I am delighted that we agree on something. Will my hon. Friend concede that we are not clear not only about the technology and about whether it can work-the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) did not give us an example of a coal project that was working anywhere in the world-but, more importantly, about the economics of carbon capture and storage? Until we can develop and refine that, it is premature to introduce emissions performance standards. We need the learning from CCS before we introduce an EPS.

Alan Simpson: That is quite wrong. We have to say that if someone is going to build a new coal-fired power station they should, in any case, expect to set an emissions performance standard for that station. What is done in CCS should be an enhancement of that. We cannot say that we should build anything that does not have an emissions performance attached to it now. That seems crazy. How can we set ourselves national targets if we begin from a presumption that we are not going to measure anything? That is why we should have the courage to set for ourselves an emissions performance standard.
	I concede that the only project that I have been able to find is one that has not been mentioned; it is in the United States. An American Electric Power company CCS retrofit project in West Virginia has so far been able to capture carbon at a rate of 1 per cent., but it hopes to raise that level to 7 per cent. That is a salutary measure of both the starting point and the extent of the road ahead of us. Having said that, I return to the point that this gamble is unavoidable: we have to take it, but we should not do so without setting safety net standards in relation to power stations having CCS.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have been down this road before with sulphur dioxide? There was a belief that we could not collect sulphur dioxide from our coal-fired power stations, but we set a standard and made it an expectation. Stations were then retrofitted, and those that could not be retrofitted were closed. This is a similar road, so it is not as though we have not been here before.

Alan Simpson: Absolutely. That is precisely the point that the Climate Change Committee made to us: we need a step change in our thinking that engages with the transformation of what we have, while making a shift to what we need for a more sustainable future. This is a time to be brave and interventionist. My biggest disappointment in this regard is about the argument that is used against us-that we should leave everything to the emissions trading scheme. For a start, the Climate Change Committee has specifically said that it does not believe that it would deliver. All the evidence suggests that the scheme, which has been a monumental failure so far, has become a cheats' charter. In the pre-conferences before Copenhagen, many of our new EU partners were deeply resistant to strengthening carbon-reduction commitments and emissions trading. I fear that the system will turn into a carbon casino which will end up benefiting no one except those who speculate on carbon price changes. That is why the House has nothing to lose and everything to gain from committing itself to the introduction of an emissions performance standard.
	My greatest worry is about Parliament and the Government being afraid to take that stance. If we continue to rely on a market for which we have aspirations, aims, ambitions and bundles of encouragement, but precious little to show that any real market transformation is taking place, then all we are doing is playing into the hands of the climate change protestors who believe that the Government of the day have lost the will to tackle the transformation agenda now-not at some stage in the future when we have passed the tipping points of climate change.
	For those who say that the public have to step in and challenge unacceptable levels of pollution, that case is reinforced when we, as a Government, refuse to set any limit on how low the standards can go. If my amendment were made, the Government could set standards that were low enough for the industry to fall over, but I hope that if they did so they would be rebuked by the House and the country. I hope that having a debate on this and having an obligation will fire in us the courage to find the will to drive this agenda in ways that we have not been doing.
	I think that this evening's vote will not necessarily be divided between left and right, between Tory and Labour or between Lib Dems and nationalists. People outside the House will see the debate as one that divides the vertebrate from the invertebrate. I want a Parliament that is unafraid to do some bullying of the big guys in the playground who terrorise the lives of ordinary citizens and energy consumers. I want us to tackle those bullies, rather than the small kids in the corner. If the House had the courage to do that, I think that the public would rise up and give us a huge cheer. It may be one of the few we ever get.

John Redwood: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has made a spirited contribution. I feel equally passionate about a subject that needs more prominence in this debate-how we keep the lights on.
	So far, the debate has generated a bit of heat and very little light. The danger of the way that the policy is drifting under this Government is that we may end up with a perfect regulatory system in due course, were they to stay in office, but that we will have no power stations to produce the power that we need and on the scale that we need. That will be because so many will have been retired for one reason or another-nuclear stations for technical reasons, and coal-fired stations for emissions reasons.
	When I come to judge this interesting debate, I will have in mind a central question: that is, which amendment would help us to get to an answer more quickly on the provision of more capacity? Surely it is more capacity, above all else, that we need to put in the front of our minds today, so that we do not end up switching off the lights.
	Of course, Energy Ministers past, present and future will tell us great things about CCS, new technologies and exciting opportunities. However, I think that any present or prospective Energy Minister will agree with me that the one thing that the Government really must not let happen on their watch-or on the watch of their successor, because we will know whom to blame-is that the lights go out.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) rightly said in his opening remarks that he was very exercised by the need to see projects and plans coming forward quite soon, to ensure that replacement power stations are available after 2015 and 2016, when the old coal and nuclear stations retire. He will be worried to hear that, when I came to the debate, I was genuinely open minded about the virtues and wisdom of the amendment that he wishes us to support this evening, should it be pressed to a vote, as it may well be.
	However, I have listened carefully to the debate, and am persuaded that new clause 15, proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and supported by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, does make sense. I believe that it would remove just a little bit of the uncertainty that is gripping the energy market in this country and preventing people from coming forward with the projects for the new gas, coal and nuclear stations-whatever they may be-that we desperately need if elderly people are to be kept warm in the winter.
	We need those new stations if this country is to have the reasonably priced power that our industry will need to have a chance to compete, and if we are to keep the lights on in the House of Commons, which we hope in due course will be a place of enlightenment generally, providing the better policies and debate that will enable us to go forward to a better future. New clause 15 could provide the clarity that we need-it has been lacking over the last decade, under successive Energy Ministers-as to what kind of performance standards the Government expect, and how they will reward investors who meet the targets and penalise those who do not.
	The Government are trying to suggest to us this afternoon that requiring them to set up targets and standards now will only delay matters more, but I do not see how they can possibly believe that. Given that all CCS projects rest on levy finance, subsidy and grant, any Government seeking value for public money will surely have to say what they expect from those projects.
	It would be completely nutty for the Government to say to industry, "Here is a great pot of money. Go away and play, and we will like what you come up with."

Colin Challen: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman at one point in his career had something to do with deregulation. Now he is arguing for more regulation: is that really a convincing stance, or is it simply politically convenient for him to take it at the present time?

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right that I have consistently wanted far less regulation that the Government have thrust upon us. I have been the co-author of a report that set out large quantities of regulation that I would love to see removed, which I think would make Britain a better place. But I have always believed that where the Government are up to their eyes in something, as they clearly are in carbon management-this is a Government project which only they can lead; the private sector is not going to do it, and it is something that the Government want to do-where the Government are leading such a project, it would be absurd for them not to say what they expect of people who are to receive public money.
	I see the Minister nodding wisely in agreement. She will have to tell the industry exactly what she wishes it to deliver for the prospective amounts of grant and money that the Government intend to offer. Similarly, Ministers have had to start to set out, in conjunction with their partner Governments in Europe and on a global scale in environmental agreements, what they expect industry generally to hit by way of targets for their various carbon trading schemes and their penalty and tax schemes.
	The Government have already done that for motorists. We know what our cars must deliver by way of various outputs from the exhaust, and different levels of tax are imposed, depending whether the Government disapprove a lot or a little of the particular vehicle that we have chosen to buy and to use. The Government cannot avoid doing something similar in respect of power generation, given that they wish to live in such a highly regulated world, with complicated systems of carbon trading and of levy, finance, grant, subsidy and altering market prices in order to achieve their aims of carbon management.
	I do not see why the Minister is so adamant that the one thing that could get in the way at this stage is a requirement that she sets out what she is trying to achieve. My worry about new clause 15, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and first inspired by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, is that it delays everything further. I understand that there needs to be time to consider what the targets and objectives should be, but one would have hoped that after five or 10 years of endless debate about all this, the Government might now be able to share some figures with us so that we can inform our judgments. Leaving it another six months is another unwarranted delay.
	I can see that the House recognises that the Government have not done their homework and are not yet prepared to come forward with any factual basis for giving us the kind of figures that industry needs for investment, so they need another six months. Most sensible investors would say, "Until we know what the terms of trade are, we can't respond to such initiatives." They will say, "We know we are going to live in a very rigged and organised market. We know that the Government are going to intervene massively in this market in all sorts of ways-penalties, subsidies and incentives," but until they know exactly what it means in pounds and pence for any given investment, they will surely be reluctant to come forward.
	On such occasions Labour suddenly becomes an advocate of the free market, in a way. Labour Members look at me and say, "As somebody who supports freer markets, surely you understand that it is up to the market now to settle these issues. The market will decide how many new power stations we want, and which ones it is going to build." The Government misunderstand that that cannot happen in this case because the market is so managed, organised and regulated. If they wish to regulate a market to such an extent, they make themselves responsible for the results.
	If the Government regulate a market as much as they have already regulated it, they need to make clear the missing bits in the jigsaw in order for the private sector to be able to participate and to trade on sensible terms. It is the Government who will decide exactly how much money people make on any of these projects, because it is the Government setting the carbon levels, the emissions levels and so on and having a very bid impact on the cost base, so if the Government wish to speed these things up, they have a duty to come forward now with some figures.
	I asked the Minister in an intervention, which she kindly took, whether she could share with us some of the background figures that the Government must have on the relative costs of the different ways of generating power, both before and after all the Government interventions through penalties and subsidies. In order to come to an informed view on clean coal, we need to know how it is likely to compare in terms of costs and carbon output with alternatives, with gas and with the other technologies on offer.
	After so many years of Green Papers, White Papers and energy policy debates, surely there must now be some understandable figures that can be shared with intelligent Members who want to discuss the issue seriously in order to establish some idea of the pecking order. I should welcome clean coal technology that worked quickly, based on British coal, because I am worried not just about the security of supply domestically and whether we have enough power stations, but about the security of supply of the raw material.
	I do not like Britain being as dependent as it is on imported oil and gas, so any technology that moves us away from that dependency is welcome. I start with a prejudice in favour of coal-based power, but I need to know whether that is realistic. There must have been enough studies now to establish some idea of the subsidy, levy intervention and support that would be needed to make those putative technologies competitive. We could then make a better judgment about whether coal can carry on providing for our existing electricity output, which it does from the older stations; whether we are talking about an expansion, which might be welcome; or whether we are talking about a sharp reduction.
	If we are talking about a sharp reduction, we must be precise about our regulatory structure for the gas-fired stations that we will need in order to provide the replacement capacity; and we must get on with the nuclear debate in order to find out whether nuclear power is a safe and economic way of filling the gap after 2020, because it clearly cannot do so in time for the gap that will emerge after 2016.
	I am persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden to support amendment 15, which he supports. It makes a statement to Ministers, but I, like its mover, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, do not think that it is the definitive answer. I urge the Government to look again at what they can publish and make available, because if they do not do so I cannot see why people would want to come forward with investment projects. If we do not start investment projects now, we will find it very difficult to provide sufficient power at sensible prices after 2016 in order to keep our economy working.

Colin Challen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on his excellent work. Even if he does not get new clause 15, he will get new clause 8, and, although that may not be entirely what he wants, it is better than nothing, because it points to a future in which an EPS may emerge.
	The Opposition Front Benchers have, to coin a phrase, something of the night about them. They have rather cynically taken up a populist cause, as they did with Heathrow runway three, while behind the scenes they support a massive expansion in carbon emissions-in that case, in aviation. This afternoon, they have not said anything at all about the level of the emissions performance standard, or how it would be applied and so on. We did not hear an alternative policy explaining how much more money might be invested in CCS to achieve an EPS. There is a lot to explain, but tomorrow's press will present the debate simply as a collection of invertebrates giving into Government bullying. It would be quite wrong to characterise the debate in that way, but the press will no doubt have their field day-fed by people from Conservative central office.
	I support an EPS, but the question is about timing. The principle is correct, but the timing is of the essence. We have heard examples of where standards exist, but they are applied to existing technologies that we well understand and whose development we can predict. I am not sure that we know how CCS will develop and if, indeed, it will be successful. Indeed, I regret that the Minister was not able to define CCS, and I hope that we establish a definition, because without one we cannot establish a standard. Should CCS be defined as more than 50 per cent. carbon capture, more than 75 per cent. or 90 per cent? The Environmental Audit Committee said that 90 per cent. was the right level, and I agree.
	A couple of years ago, several Labour Members visited a CCS pilot project in eastern Germany, close to the Polish border, at a place called Schwarze Pumpe, which might be on the list of stations that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has. It is a coal-fired power station that produces millions of tonnes of emissions a year-not comparable to Drax, but pretty big-and its little pilot project captures 36,000 tonnes a year. That is state-of-the-art technology, so there is a big gap and a long way to go, and the issue is not just about the technology, but about the legality. Where do we put the stuff? It is okay to say that we can put it in the North sea, which has a huge capacity, but is it necessarily correct to do so? What are the legalities of storing something in these reservoirs for centuries? Who is responsible for them over time? Is that going to be included in, or excluded from, the standard?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Does he accept, however, that there is plenty of scientific evidence that there is trillions of tonnes-worth of storage capacity around the world in various geological formations, which is a very safe way to store CO2, in contrast to something such as radioactive nuclear waste, because in time it is absorbed by the rocks and aquifers?

Colin Challen: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. However, even with the small, state-of-the-art pilot project in Germany, people have to be convinced about having the carbon under their land. It is not always out in the North sea, which sounds very nice and offshore, as if it will never come back and bite us. In storing something like that underground, one has to find the legal methods of doing it. All these things have a long way to go in development: this is new stuff, and new thinking is required.
	The trouble with new clause 15 is its time scale. It starts off by saying,
	"The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce"
	an EPS, but then one turns over the page, where it says,
	"The Secretary of State must set out his proposals for consultation within six months of the passage of this Act",
	and that the whole thing has to be in place within 12 months. I do not know where "may" fits into that, as the Secretary of State is being told to do it within 12 months. It is unlikely that during those 12 months we would have acquired sufficient knowledge to have a standard. We could end up with a standard-my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave this away-that was very flexible. I would want a gold standard, not something that could be repeatedly raised and lowered like the tide according to where the science was at any given time.

Gavin Strang: That was not my intention. Obviously, we would have a whole year to work it out and, with all the advice that the Government put in, make a judgment. Let me add in passing that this is essentially about supporting coal, and we should not lose sight of the fact that a coal power station, for every gigawatt hour it produces, emits twice as much CO2 as a gas-fired power station.

Colin Challen: I entirely accept the urgency of this. I want an EPS to be in place at some point in the not too distant future. New clause 8 would allow for that and, as the Minister has said, existing legislation permits it. We will have this standard when we better understand the technology, legalities, disposal, transport and all the rest of it, and I do not think that that can be established in 12 months.

Martin Horwood: This is hopelessly unambitious. The Norwegian projects at Sleipner and Snøhvit have been injecting 1.7 million tonnes of CO2 a year since 1996. Many of these technologies are very well established, so we do not need to wait for a great deal longer before setting the standards.

Colin Challen: In that case, what has been amiss? Why does every country not have this standard right now, fully implemented, with 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. capture? The hon. Gentleman is talking about a different process, as I understand it. These might be emissions that are pumped back down to help to get oil out, or whatever-I do not know the exact circumstances. There are plenty of pointers to show that this technology may well work, and we are allowing up to 2020 or 2025 to see that it does. I am sure that by that time we will be able to get these standards in place.
	I regret that I am unable to join my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South in the Lobby. I support the EPS approach, but the time is not quite right to establish something that then will not become our flexible friend. The danger of setting the standard too low, as I suspect that it would be if we introduced it early, is that one would effectively give a permit to pollute further down the line when we found that the technology could go beyond the standard. At this stage, we have to accept new clause 8 and hope that through that mechanism we will get the progress that we want.

Brian Binley: This has been a fascinating debate about whether we should have performance standards, and there is much at stake for this country and for my children and grandchildren. It is a pity that we have not spent more time talking about that, because in many respects their future well-being depends on the matter. We ought to put it into perspective a bit.
	I have been working for a clean coal sector within our energy provision for quite a long time, and I have been disappointed by the progress in the House since I have been here. I must say, however, that the pace of progress has increased remarkably since the current Secretary of State has been in his position, and I am delighted that that is the case. I was disappointed that the CCS competition was not worked out in quite the efficient way I had hoped. To be fair, the Minister of State has admitted that, which I welcome. I also welcome the fact that the next three of the promised four projects in Britain's CCS programme will be undertaken under different criteria. There is an important learning curve, and we have grabbed it and taken it on board.
	I shall briefly mention the technology involved. There are already more than 70 projects in existence throughout the world, and carbon storage has been well handled by BP in the middle of the Algerian desert for 13 years. Anyone who goes down to Sunbury to look at its centre where CCS is controlled and researched will be amazed by the progress that has been made, how much monitoring is undertaken and how safe the process is. I am worried for my grandchildren, not about leaks of carbon dioxide but that the power stations will cease to produce the energy that we need in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that too, although we come to different conclusions.
	New clause 8 is particularly important. I am disappointed that the Minister decided to go for a three-year reporting term. I would prefer an annual report, not least because energy provision will be the most crucial and worrying area of activity, and one of the most doubtful, for our well-being and that of our children and grandchildren. The development of CCS in the next 10 years will be absolutely vital for the well-being of this country, which is why I would have hoped that we could return to it every year. There are many questions that we need to keep track of and find answers to.
	The pace has picked up enormously, and in my view it will continue to do so. We will be hanging on the back of global development in CCS in the next 10 years, and we need to be as well informed as we possibly can be. That is why I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to rethink the timing of reporting. I believe that we need an annual report.
	I need to question the Minister also on the content of the report. I notice that subsection (2)(a) of new clause 8 states that the purpose of the report is an assessment of
	"whether carbon capture and storage technology in generation of electricity on a commercial scale"
	has been successfully demonstrated. "On a commercial scale" means that all three elements of CCS must have been demonstrated-taking the carbon from the generation station, transporting it to the aquifer and shoving it down the aquifer. It also requires getting the coal in the first place, so we need to keep track of many issues with regard to CCS on a commercial scale. I ask the Minister whether a number of them will be included in what I hope will be the annual report to the House.
	Of course we will need to talk about sites following the decision on the three projects that we hope to make progress on-a decision that we hope the Minister will make by the end of this year. As an aside, I was delighted to learn that she expects to make a decision quickly on the competition for the initial experiment and the first station. I hope that happens within weeks rather than months and I look forward to it.
	Will the report include the concept of clusters, which is vital to this country and its people, who will want to know where the jobs and the power stations will be, and how we are going to plan such things in the years to come? There is also the issue of a pipeline network. The size of the pipeline is crucial. If we have a relatively small pipeline and a cluster thereafter, we might be unable to progress with further stations because the pipeline cannot take the carbon. That would clearly be crazy, so we need to think about the size of the pipeline and how the pipeline network will service the transportation of the carbon that we extract from the coal.
	We need a real understanding of how we are going to shove the carbon down into the aquifers. There is no doubt that we are immensely well blessed with aquifers in the North sea, because we can not only create a global trade in storage, which will enhance Britain's income, but enhance the production of oil and gas. It is estimated that if we do that properly, we can get an extra 15 per cent. more oil out of the North sea, which is a prize worth grabbing when we are being told from certain quarters that our production will peak by 2015. We need to understand aquifers.
	Longannet is talking with Shell about stuffing the carbon down into the aquifers, but we need more information, and to track the situation. In Sunbury, BP has worked on tracking the carbon using satellites, which is a most remarkable technology. Technology to work out the dispersal of the CO2 underground in the aquifer, which is important, is also in place. We are behind not on technology but on putting the stuff together on a commercial scale of, say, 800 MW. That is what we are testing for-the technology is already there. Will the report also be about aquifers and the potential for Britain to sell aquifer space to other producers of CO2? That business is growing quickly and dramatically throughout the world.

Phil Willis: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister was right to say that the Bill tries to put three technologies together, which has not been done elsewhere, which we accept. However, in reality, the end bit-storage in aquifers in the North sea and elsewhere-is not in the gift of the Government but of oil and gas companies, which still own them. Does he share my concern that many aquifers will disappear quickly, because they will collapse, and that unless the Government, through the reporting mechanism, which is important, state how we are going to maintain them in the short term as well as the long term, we will lose an opportunity to be world leaders in storage as well as outcome?

Brian Binley: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in this field and his support for this project. We worked together in Committee, when that knowledge was very well displayed.
	It is reckoned that about half the wells that are currently usable will have closed by 2015 unless we do something. That is an important date, because the issue is not only the ability to shove the stuff down the wells, but keeping it there. If wells are not maintained, they deteriorate very quickly, and once they are capped they become useless. We need to take that into account, and I wonder whether the report will do so.
	I wish to stray a little on to the issue of coal communities, because the provision of coal is an important matter. British coal is a massive resource that we need to tap. We have 300 years or so of energy beneath our feet, which means energy security in sizeable abundance. I hope that the coal community aspect is a consideration for the Minister in terms of the report.
	We should not forget the potential investment opportunities in an export industry that could retrofit some of the 20,000 coal-fired power stations that are capable of it. What a fantastic market that could be, if we could sell a product to those power stations worldwide. We know that a new coal-fired power station is opened every week in China at present, so there is massive potential, but we have to be in the market now. That is why we need investment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that particular area of activity will be covered in the report.
	I welcome the Government's approach to this issue. I believe that there is a general consensus across the House that we are proceeding to attempt to exploit a carbon-free resource that lies in abundance beneath our feet. If we do that successfully, quickly and properly, my children and my grandchildren will thank us. If all I ever do in this House is play a small part in that process, I will consider my time here successful. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I wish it Godspeed. I look forward to working with whoever is concerned with this issue in the years to come.

Paddy Tipping: I am with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on this. Like him, I want to see British coal burned cleanly. There are those who oppose the coal industry internationally, but I know that fossil fuels will be burned into the future. I am also with the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), because he spelled out all the things we need to do to ensure that CCS works properly. We need to get demonstration plants up and running in this country very quickly.
	I am aware of your strictures on time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish to speak from a local point of view. I represent a coalfield area, in which deep coal is still mined-and there is very little of that happening in this country now. Our miners are the most efficient in Europe. What stands in the way of progress in the future is not economics, but the environment. The big challenge ahead of us is to ensure that we can burn coal more quickly. If we can do that, the coalfield in Nottinghamshire will survive into the future.
	I am delighted that the Secretary of State met representatives from Welbeck colliery last weekend, because although the colliery is mothballed at the moment, it could reopen. It faces the task faced by the whole energy sector-that of attracting investment. The colliery needs an investment of £200 million and that money is not available on the market at the moment, because it is deemed too risky.

Phil Willis: I totally support the idea that we should incentivise our coal industry, provided that we have the technology to clean up the carbon. I think that the whole House-by and large-agrees with that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a cruel deception in this issue? Much of our coalfield closed down because the foreign owners of our power stations could buy coal from Australia, Poland or Indonesia more cheaply than they could get it out of the mines in Nottinghamshire. What comfort has the hon. Gentleman had from the Minister that somehow British coal will be subsidised to enable the generators to use it?

Paddy Tipping: I do not think that there will be a subsidy on coal. It is clear that coal costs have been driven down, and will continue to be driven down into the future. Ultimately, that is clearly an issue about security of supply, which is the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. In the future, all sources of energy will be in demand internationally, and we need to secure our base through British coal.
	I want Welbeck colliery reopened, and reopened quickly. It would cost £200 million. Discussions are taking place with the European Investment Bank, which likes the project, but there are hurdles to be overcome, and the hurdle that it cannot jump at the moment is that which the EIB wants it to jump: coal from Welbeck should be burned cleanly. The issue for miners in Nottinghamshire, UK Coal and the Government is how we get there. After much discussion, the consensus is that very quickly we have to get a demonstration plant up and running in Nottinghamshire or Yorkshire where that coal can go to. The demonstration model, backed by the levy in the Bill, is the way to do that.
	Like the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), I spend a lot of time talking to energy providers, and it is clear to me that they are dependent on the new mechanism. It is also clear that they are most concerned about the introduction of an EPS. It is interesting that in this discussion no one has been clear about what the levels in the EPS are to be. People say, "It's going to happen within a year. We can define it within a year", but CCS will not be up and running within a year. Let us be absolutely clear about this: it will be five years, at least, before we know how to put that technology together.
	Like the hon. Member for Northampton, South, I know that we can put the technology together, but I am not clear about the future costs. The perception is that the cost of burning coal, with CCS on top of it, will be 10 per cent. greater than for present conventional mechanisms. We need to get the experience and to demonstrate not just the one project, but the four that have been mentioned. It is clear, therefore, that we have to make progress quickly, and I am delighted with the acceleration that has taken place within the new ministerial team, on this issue, at the new Department.

Martin Horwood: Obviously, as we have discussed at length, there is no existing large-scale CCS on a coal-fired power-generating station, but there is a wealth of experience on the cost of this technology, because, as various Members have said, it has been around for a long time. The IEA greenhouse gas project has a wealth of data on the economics of CCS. It ranges from that which is commercial now-for instance, where there is advanced oil recovery, where storage is right next to the plant and on particular types of recovery-right through to that which is quite expensive, very distant from the aquifer and so on. That experience and those data are already readily available.

Paddy Tipping: I take that point, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged at last that there is no large demonstration coal plant anywhere in the world-it has taken us all afternoon to get there, but finally he has admitted it.

Martin Horwood: That is not what I said. There already are demonstration projects, including Schwarze Pumpe and another one in China, but there is not one on a commercial scale for an existing power station.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say that the amount of time left is diminishing? Perhaps the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) could ration himself a little more.

Paddy Tipping: I will check the hon. Gentleman's words on the record, but for now I am delighted that he has accepted that there is no commercial plant dependent on coal anywhere in the world.
	We have to demonstrate that we can achieve that here, and the way to do that is through the mechanisms that my hon. Friend the Minister spelled out at the beginning of this debate. We have taken the trick: we have got the way forward, but we need to back it. It is no good talking about trying to define an EPS into the future, because we do not have the knowledge to do it now. Let me tell my hon. Friends that this debate is not between vertebrates and invertebrates; it is between those of us who are progressive and reformist, and those who are absolutist. The history is clear: in the end, reformists always win the day. And let me say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: please go forward quickly.

Michael Weir: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I agreed with much of what he said, but I will be supporting the EPS. I do not consider myself to be a vertebrate or whatever-I am a very cautious person-but we need to pin things down.
	In introducing this debate the Minister talked about the need to decarbonise the energy supply. I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that. I agree entirely that we have got to get CCS to work. Coal and gas are important to our current energy supply and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, so CCS is vital. Indeed, I am pleased to see that there will be a change, with gas perhaps being allowed later. However, if we are to persuade people of the need to pay for CCS, we will have to show results.
	Much has been said about investment today. The CBI has sent me-and, I am sure, every other Member-its paper on investment, which says:
	"An EPS could deter investment in CCS which would have an adverse impact on energy security",
	and continues:
	"Introducing an EPS risks the unintended consequence of diverting investment away from UK clean coal, and towards CCS projects in countries where the risk profile is lower."
	That is a point of view, but as was pointed out earlier, there is one thing being done in this country that is not done elsewhere, and the Minister said it herself. No other country has a statutory funding mechanism. She has talked about £9.5 billion from the levy for four demonstration plants. That is a considerable amount of the investment that will be needed for those four plants, but the money will not come out of thin air; rather, it is money from the levy on the energy companies, the cost of which will be met by the consumer at the end of the day. We are therefore talking about giving £9.5 billion of consumers' money to the energy companies to demonstrate CCS, and possibly also for retrofitting.
	Earlier the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned the increasing scepticism about climate change shown in polls of late. However, another type of scepticism is increasing, and that is scepticism among energy consumers, who are being asked to bear more and more costs, for environmental issues, helping with the grid and so on. As we are in a period when wages are not rising and are not likely to rise for the foreseeable future, yet energy bills continue to rise, and more and more is being put on those bills, there is a squeeze on the energy consumers who pay them. If we are going to take consumers with us down this route, we have to convince them that we are getting value for money for the huge amounts that we are putting into CCS and other things. One way to do that is by putting the EPS in place.
	I understand the point that the hon. Member for Sherwood made about timing, and he is right. A year is a short time when we are talking about CCS, which we have talked about for many years but have never really got off the ground, for various reasons that I could go into at length, but will not. We have to show the consumer that we are putting real pressure on the companies to perform, to ensure that the money is well invested, that we will have a CCS system that works and reduces carbon emissions, that the cost is worth while for reducing the long-term emissions into the atmosphere and for helping to meet our challenging targets for carbon emissions reduction.
	I understood the points that the Minister was making earlier, and I do not disagree with a lot of them, but the reality seems to be that the only new coal plants that will come into being in the next few years will be those sanctioned through the levy. No one in their right mind will operate a coal plant without the levy.
	To digress slightly, we talked about gas earlier, and I made the point in Committee about the terms of the national planning statement in England, which I think will prevent new gas plant from being developed. We took that up with the Minister, Lord Hunt, when he appeared before the Committee, and he promised to look into the matter again. This needs to be sorted out, because it could stand in the way of the development of gas plant.
	The EPS will show a determination to ensure that consumers are getting value for money and that they are actually going to get somewhere with these companies. It will show that we are not just giving them money to build new plant. This brings me to my worry about new clause 8. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity on the new clause. I do not doubt that the Government intend its effect to be that, in reviewing the measure in future, we will consider an EPS if we are not making fast enough moves towards decarbonisation. To me, however, that is not what the new clause actually says.
	The new clause says that we will look at
	"whether coal-fired generating stations for which appropriate consent is given on or after 1st January 2020 that are built in Great Britain can be expected to be constructed so as to enable use of carbon capture and storage technology on all their generating capacity".
	Subsection (3) then says:
	"A report under subsection (1) must also include a review of whether, having regard to the other matters contained in the report, any government policies should be revised".
	It does not talk about whether policies should be strengthened, or whether we should consider introducing an EPS; it simply talks about whether they should be revised.
	We should bear in mind the fact that by that time the energy companies will have invested money in the plant, and the Government will have invested £9.5 billion-perhaps a lot more. If, disastrously, carbon capture and storage is not working economically, there will be massive pressure on the Government of the day. Let us remember that 2020 is two Parliaments away, and with the best will in the world, whatever happens later this year, the Minister is unlikely still to be in her post-no offence meant to her, of course. In those circumstances, there will be massive pressure on the Government of the day to allow the plants to continue to operate without CCS because of the money that has been put in, and because of the effect on the energy system if they were taken out of commission.
	For all those reasons, it seems perfectly sensible-indeed, absolutely essential-that we make it clear to the energy companies from the outset that there must be an emissions standard and that they must meet it. We are putting this money in to help us to achieve our carbon reduction targets, and if we do not do that, there is real dangers ahead. I also suggest that we would have grave difficulty in convincing the energy consumers-who, ultimately, are paying for all this-that that is the right thing to do. I will support the emissions target tonight, and I hope that the measure goes through. I foresee great difficulty if it does not.

Alan Whitehead: I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) that this debate might, unfortunately, be characterised as a debate between vertebrates and invertebrates. I believe, however, that it is about whether a very good existing policy on carbon capture and storage should be strengthened, or whether, in seeking to strengthen it, we could end up with no carbon capture and storage, and no coal plants, at all.
	The debate is also about where we want to get to in terms of using low-carbon coal, if we decide we are going to use further coal power for energy production. It is also about whether we have new coal plants-if we do not have any, we will certainly not have any carbon capture technology, because the one follows from the other. As I said in an earlier intervention, the debate is about whether we take seriously what we are going to do about existing coal plants for our future energy economy, bearing in mind that we want that future energy economy to be low carbon, and perhaps to involve some coal for low-carbon energy.
	If we want certainty about what will happen to investors in new coal plant, as well as investors in existing coal plant, if they continue to use those assets to develop energy-or not, as the case may be-we need to look no further than the Committee on Climate Change. In a recent report, it said explicitly that
	"there is no role for unabated coal-fired generation beyond the 2020s on the way to an 80 per cent. emissions reduction in 2050".
	That is a very clear statement, which is, in fact, rather more radical than an emissions performance standard, in saying that by the 2020s investors in coal-either in existing power stations or new ones-will not be able to use those stations for energy generation unless it is abated. Full stop. That seems to me to provide complete certainty about the future basis for investment. This is essentially the position we are now in, as we look at carbon capture and storage.
	The question then arises: if we adopt one or more of these amending provisions, where do we stand in terms of the aim? If new clause 15 were adopted, the No. 1 point is that no new coal-fired stations might be developed in the first place-for reasons connected with the economics of developing the power stations and the imposition and overlay of an EPS on an existing series of projects for new coal-fired projects. As new clause 15 specifically points out, the suggested EPSs should apply only to new coal-fired plant. We could thus end up with the worst of all worlds-with no new coal-fired power stations and with no emissions standards for existing coal-fired power stations. That would indeed be a magnificently perverse outcome for those who claim that they are fighting on behalf of the vertebrates against the invertebrates.

Alan Simpson: rose-

Alan Whitehead: I believe that my hon. Friend conceded that point in response to my earlier intervention. That seems to me to be a possible problem with new clause 15.

Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend is right that that might be a problem with new clause 15. However, he should bear in mind what successive Ministers have repeatedly said-that there is nothing to stop the Government from introducing an EPS on their own account now. The new clause could cover the aspects that are omitted in relation to existing plans, but the real question is whether there is the political will for an EPS. It actually comes down to something as fundamental as that.

Alan Whitehead: I take my hon. Friend's point, but we are debating real amendments before us, which would have a real effect, so if we go into the Lobbies to vote on those provisions, the outcome will be that one amending provision or another will be passed. New clause 15 clearly states that an EPS of any description-it is not quantified-will apply only to new power plant.
	Here, I am sorry to say, I am reminded of the contribution of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)-a man who lives and dies by markets-because he appeared to confuse markets with marketplaces. In energy, we do indeed have a very constrained market, but we also have a marketplace for balancing our energy supply between what is demanded, which is variable, and what is supplied, which is also variable. Not only do we have a variable supply, but we have the introduction of a variable-in a different sense-renewable supply against a baseline supply which is not variable, but which may come within the marketplace on a variable basis.
	All those elements must be balanced against each other if we are-as the right hon. Gentleman said-to keep the lights on. If we wish to keep the lights on, as well as moving to a low-carbon economy and retaining an element of coal, we must take careful account of how the existing coal-fired power stations-not necessarily the most economic-remain in the marketplace in terms of the balancing mechanism that I assume will continue be used to ensure that our energy supply demand matches our energy supply over a period of years.
	If we are to do that, it is imperative that the existing coal-fired power stations are clear about two facts. They must be clear about the fact that they will not receive rebates after the 2020s, and they must be clear about the fact that a number of them will stay on line after 2015-16. We should consider what will happen if, as a result of anything that we do today, a commercial decision is made that causes those 10 stations to close, given that they will not be receiving receive rebates for very long.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned flue desulphurisation. The decision in that instance was made not on the basis of whether it was suitable for those stations, but on the basis of the economics. A number of coal-fired stations were closed under the large plant directive because it would not have been economic to fit desulphurisation equipment. The 10 stations that will continue to operate do have that technology, and can operate for a while: indeed, Drax can operate for a number of years.
	The question that we must ask ourselves is: do we wish those power stations to disappear from the marketplace in the not too distant future? If so, we shall be faced with the additional prospect of either the market or the Government building new power stations and mothballing them in order to keep the marketplace working in terms of energy supplies. That is a second possible perverse outcome of what we think we are trying to achieve today.
	I believe that new clause 8 represents a considerable improvement on what we were offered in Committee. It sets out what we should seek in terms of progress; it sets out our aims; it sets out how we can get there; it sets out what we do if we are beginning to fail to get there; and it sets out the ultimate outcome. That seems to me to ensure that the outcomes that we want will be achieved and the risk of perverse outcomes minimised. I therefore cannot support new clause 15, and I urge the House to support new clause 8.

David Anderson: It is impossible for us to conduct this debate without understanding the background: what is actually going on in the world of energy supply. The debate is long overdue, and, given the position in which we now find ourselves, perhaps too late. Ofgem's recent report "Project Discovery" has been a wake-up call for many-perhaps for Ofgem more than for anyone else. This morning, at a meeting of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, its chief executive, Alistair Buchanan, spoke to us along with some colleagues. He told us that he had been surprised and exposed by events that he had not anticipated. I was quite concerned when he said that. He mentioned six things that identified his concern about the stage we have reached in developing an energy system that is fit for the future. I think that most people who are involved in energy debates would understand five of them.
	Mr Buchanan spoke of reasonable doubts about security of supply. Those have existed for some time. He also mentioned an overall rise in prices since 1998, climate change and the legislative programme from Europe, the closure of coal plants-which has been dictated by that programme-and the risk posed by gas imports. That risk has been clear for at least five years, given, for instance, the closure of pipelines from Ukraine. A huge element has been the length and depth of the financial crisis. It is clear that Ofgem, along with many other people in the country, could not have been expected to forecast that or work its way around it.
	The country faces an energy challenge that is probably unique. Much of what we have is not fit for purpose. In particular, we face the huge issue of security of supply, while seeking massive investment from the markets. Ofgem predicts that we will need to raise £200 billion by 2020. That is a huge sum of money, and Ofgem put it into context today when it said that £100 billion was invested in the water industry over 20 years, and we now need £200 billion over 10 years-twice as much over half the length of time, when we have had serious economic problems. We are certainly in straitened times.
	Alistair Buchanan highlighted that in his report. Project Discovery states that
	"although investor confidence appears to be recovering...there is still a question as to whether the high levels of investment needed...will be available at a reasonable cost".
	I asked the Minister earlier to give us an idea as to what the cost to the consumer would be, but she was unable to do so, because we do not know. We do not know what we will be charged by the private companies going forward.
	Alistair Buchanan went on to say that
	"we are entering a phase of substantial new investment in energy markets globally...If the GB market is perceived as a higher risk than those overseas, returns will need to be higher in order to attract sufficient investment. Furthermore, international competition for constrained skills, equipment and other resources could push up costs."
	There is a huge difference between that and what he said four years ago. In a speech to the International Energy Agency, he said that the development of gas coming into Teesside
	"shows that the markets deliver entrepreneurial solutions and that markets deliver."
	They are clearly not doing very well going forward.
	What is the situation in the country now? We are importing 43 million tonnes of coal a year, and we are burning 65 million tonnes of coal a year, and we are running out of UK gas and oil. We are also in limbo between old nuclear build and new nuclear build. We are closing down all the coal-fired power stations, too, and the electricity grid is clearly not fit for purpose for this century and going forward. There is also a huge issue of lack of skills. One point that has been continually repeated in our Select Committee debates is that energy companies have not invested in skills because of the overriding objective of keeping prices down and giving shareholder dividends. Although we need to develop new technologies, we do not have the people with the skills to do so. The industry has not developed these new skills, and we are dependent on coal and gas imports from very unstable states.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke earlier about his concern about where our coal comes from. Let me repeat something that I have said more than once before in this House, especially as the Minister with responsibility for coal is present. There is a moral point to be made about the fact that we import coal. We are importing coal from China, where 6,000 miners a year are dying. Tonight in China, 20 men will not go home because of a lack of safety standards. In Ukraine, for every 1 million tonnes of coal that is got out of the ground, seven people die. That is the reality of getting cheap imported coal. If we are happy with that, we are not the people we should be in this country.
	Investors in the industry are constantly looking for support from the public purse. From all the debates we have had over the past 25 years about the privatisation of public services, I have understood that the whole idea is to transfer the risk: if we transfer the services out of the public sector, we also transfer out the risk. The truth, however, is that whenever the risk returns, these investors are suddenly standing with their hands out, and with their hands in our pockets, demanding that our customers and electorates pay for their shortfalls.
	The European energy system works in a different way from ours. In the rest of the European Union, countries base their energy debates and demands first of all on social obligations. We base ours on price-led mechanisms, so it is no wonder that when times are tough gas goes into Europe and out of Britain. Twenty years have passed since we were told to "Tell Sid." Well, the chickens are coming home to roost, because companies here need to find £200 billion and we are on the back foot. The companies will be coming to the Government-regardless of which party is in charge-and saying, "We need you to help us. We need you to help us at a time when money is more expensive than it has probably been for a long time." We are paying the price for being in an ideologically driven situation, and it is the very same ideology that got us into this mess in the first place.
	This Bill is a small step towards putting some of that right. As has been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House, there is no doubt that a significant sea change has taken place in the past two years, particularly with the creation of the new Department and the new drive to try to put the British coal industry, in particular, and the British energy system back where they should be. Nobody wanted to talk about energy during the first three years that I was in this House. It took the huge petrol price increases of two years ago to frighten people; the reality was that we were being held to ransom by the oil companies and we needed to start doing things. If that has been a push in the right direction, thank God it has.
	We have great potential in this country. The coal industry remains massively untapped-we have tapped into only 10 per cent. of the coal supply in this country. In addition to the nuclear power potential, we know about the potential of offshore wind and tidal power. Those sources all provide excellent opportunities, but we must ensure that we have a package of incentives and developments that make them work. We have a massively bureaucratic system at the moment. It is in place to try to drive the market, work with it and make it operate, but the system is confusing, costly and comfortable for business.
	The Select Committee is to publish a report-I believe that this will happen this week-on the need to develop new networks for the grids. Some 17 acronyms in that report relate to trying to dictate the market, including: BETTA, which stands for the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements; LENS, which stands for the long-term electricity network scenarios; and ENSG, which stands for the electricity networks strategy group. All those things have been put in place to try to make the market work in the way that it should be working in any case.
	This is a huge challenge for the future, and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I do not believe that the market will provide in the way that this country really needs and that I am convinced that the Conservative party will not be able to work with the market in the way that is right for this country. We need to get this Bill through and we need this Government returned to make sure that we put this right.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) for a superb Third Reading speech; I am glad to have heard it at this point because it much encouraged me.
	I shall try to respond to the points that must not remain on the record without a response being given and on which I have been asked questions.
	I asked the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) to provide the details of the companies that supported his view that an EPS set at the right level would encourage investment. I must tell him that the Scottish and Southern Energy Group has said that
	"even legislation which provides for an EPS to be introduced at a level to be decided later, could deter investment, because it increases political risk".
	RWE has said that
	"the threat of any introduction of an EPS would act as a strong deterrent for investment in new plant".
	I believe that he is unable to support his arguments and, thus, his case for an EPS.

Charles Hendry: Will the Minister confirm that she was saying just a little while ago that the Government themselves would look at an EPS if that was necessary in a few years' time? Therefore, the EPS is on the agenda, so it is just a question of whether the EPS is set in the next few months to give clarity ahead of investment decisions or whether it hangs over companies like the sword of Damocles and possibly undermines those investment decisions.

Joan Ruddock: The quotes that we have seen and the conversations that we have had with the companies have all been based around the provisions of this Bill, what they mean for investment in this country now and how those investment decisions would be undermined by the introduction of an EPS now, as proposed in the new clause that the hon. Gentleman supports.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said that there was a need for clear signals to be given. I do not believe that there could be a clearer signal than the framework that we offer in this Bill, the levy that it contains and the certainty that companies can have that they can invest at a time when they are being asked to do so in technology that in its complete form-from capture to transportation to storage-has not yet been proven. He cited a range of projects that appear in an IEA report. I have to tell him that I have now had the opportunity to check all those projects and I have found that some of them are not operational, some will not necessarily be taken forward and none is on a commercial scale. I hope that he will therefore understand that what is proposed by our framework is necessary, because those projects are not on a commercial scale, and the support that we rightly offer through this Bill is what industry needs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about EU law and suggested that there was an amendment to a directive that could be a threat to any future EPS. We have been in discussions on the matter and we remain convinced that the proposed amendment does not threaten any attempt by a sovereign state to introduce an EPS at any stage in the future.
	I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) in his place. I think that he compared me to a worm today, which I am very surprised at-he compared me to an invertebrate, and the best known invertebrate is a worm. He spoke at some length about how he thinks that an EPS can incentivise, and made comparisons with the German feed-in tariffs and catalytic converters in cars. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) intervened and made the following point, but it needs to be emphasised. There is a fundamental difference between creating incentives to bring on and to produce more use of existing technologies, and creating the incentives required to enable people to take on a huge risk where the technology is not yet entirely proven. We reject absolutely the comparisons made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, which do not support a case for imposing an EPS such as that which he suggests at this stage.
	When EU law sets standards, it does so on the basis of the best available technology-that means not just the technology that is available for lab-scale prototypes but that which is economically and technically feasible. That is the judgment that we must make when we are considering the investment programme that we propose and how an EPS would undermine it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South also asked, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), why the Government would throw such enormous sums of money at the private sector without setting any conditions. First, let me remind the House that conditions already exist in our climate change levy and the EU emissions trading scheme. We are already in a carbon-constrained economy where all fossil fuels are subject to some constraint, and that is recognised and codified in the carbon budgets that we have set through to 2022. They, of course, are statutory.
	Obviously, conditions will be set on the projects through the incentive. There will be performance standards, which will need to include the meeting of an agreed schedule for the storage of CO2 and the amount of CO2 that is to be stored. There will need to be monitoring of the CCS projects, as well as the collection, collation and reporting of information to an agreed standard. The information will then have to be shared. We will have to ensure that the CCS projects fully meet any relevant safety and other standards. So, there will be standards. In addition, the payment made to companies will not just be given to companies willy-nilly. It will be awarded to companies based on the amount of CO2 that is saved.
	As for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whom I see nodding-perhaps he is glad to have had that information-he asked for more information. He asked about the overall investment and I repeat what I said earlier: the estimated cost of the investment is £9.5 billion. He spoke well and in a way with which we would all agree about energy security. It is fundamental to what we are doing and the Bill is intended to assist with energy security. He said that the Government need to be clear about the missing bits, and we think that we have done that by saying that we need new nuclear projects, by making massive renewables incentives available to industry and by saying categorically and specifically in the Bill that we need four new coal-fired power stations, which we will enable to come on stream by making the CCS levy available. He can find further details about finance in the annexe to the low carbon transition plan, but that will be revised soon so he is welcome to write to me if he wants further detail, which I may or may not be able to give him. Where I am able to, I will do so.
	I very much appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), and I think that we all appreciated his enthusiasm for carbon capture and storage. He was at the meeting of the all-party group on coalfield communities that I addressed yesterday. It is important that people across the House have a commitment to coal and to the future in the way that he expressed. I cannot give him the satisfaction of agreeing to move from a three-year reporting period to a one-year reporting period, but I will say that, as he well knows, it is up to all Members of the House at Question Time, in Opposition day debates and on other occasions to obtain more frequent responses from Ministers if that seems appropriate. He asked specifically about the nature of reports. I can give him the assurance that all matters such as clusters, the concept of pipeline networks and storage capacity-indeed, all the potential uses that he could think of-can be covered by reports, and we anticipate that they will be.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) asked about a subsection of new clause 8 and the fact that we have said clearly that we will be in a position, through the reporting regime, to consider whether we need to revise policies. He has interpreted that to mean that we will revise matters in 2020. On the contrary, we have three-year stages, so there will always be the potential to revise policy as we go along. The difference between our position and that of putting an EPS in place very quickly is that we will have knowledge of how CCS is going and will therefore be able to make better judgments not only about whether an EPS might be required at any stage, but on whether any other measures are required. Companies clearly understand that we are putting our confidence in CCS and we are making it possible, but sensibly and rationally. We will revise matters on the basis of how well things are going and what is achieved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon rightly said that I did not respond immediately to his question about the likely effect on customers' bills. I responded to that point later, but he might not have heard that response. We think that the levy that we propose would have an effect in the region of 2 to 3 per cent. on a customer's annual bill.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Rothwell, for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), all of whom I believe are environmental vertebrates, certainly in my experience, in their enthusiasm- [ Interruption. ] There has been an in-joke all afternoon about the vertebrates and the invertebrates. My hon. Friends have demolished the arguments in favour of introducing an EPS under any of the new clauses, and have demonstrated the perverse outcomes that could result if we were to vote in favour of any of them. I commend new clause 8 to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We understand, of course, the sequence of votes and debates but, for the purposes of clarification, would you be kind enough to confirm that you will permit a vote on new clause 15? It was in the group of amendments that we have just debated. Will we have a vote on it at the end of the time allocated for the Report stage?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I was told by the previous occupant of the Chair that there would be a request for that vote, and I am happy to accede to it.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Modifications of supply licences: notice of unilateral changes to domestic supply contracts

'(1) The Secretary of State may modify-
	(a) a condition of a particular licence under section 7A(1) of the Gas Act 1986 (supply licences);
	(b) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under that provision by virtue of section 8 of that Act;
	(c) a condition of a particular licence under section 6(1)(d) of the Electricity Act 1989 (supply licences);
	(d) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under that provision by virtue of section 8A of that Act.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make a modification under subsection (1) only for the purpose of securing that customers under contracts for domestic supply are notified about changes which licence holders make under unilateral variation terms in-
	(a) any terms of such contracts, or
	(b) the price charged for energy supplied under such contracts,
	within a period specified in (or determined by reference to criteria set by) the licence as so modified.
	(3) Modifications under subsection (1) may include provision-
	(a) requiring a notice to be given before or after the change to which it relates is made,
	(b) about the form of a notice and the manner in which it is to be given,
	(c) about the effect of a notice,
	(d) about the effect of failure to give a notice, or
	(e) requiring a notice to be accompanied by other information.
	(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised after the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which that subsection comes into force.
	(5) Before making a modification under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult-
	(a) the holder of any licence being modified,
	(b) the Authority, and
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to consult.
	(6) In this section a "unilateral variation term" means a term in a contract for domestic supply under which a licence holder is permitted to change a term of the contract or a price charged for energy supplied under it, without the agreement of the customer to the particular changes.
	(7) For the purposes of subsection (2), agreement by a customer under a contract for domestic supply to a unilateral variation term (whether by entering into the contract or otherwise) is not be taken to constitute agreement to any particular changes made by virtue of the term.
	(8) In this section-
	"a contract for domestic supply" means a contract for the supply of energy by a licence holder to a customer at domestic premises wholly or mainly for domestic purposes;
	"energy"-
	(c) in relation to the holder of a licence under section 7A(1) of the Gas Act 1986, means gas;(d) in relation to the holder of a licence under section 6(1)(d) of the Electricity Act 1989, means electricity.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 10- General duties of the Authority and the Secretary of State.
	Government new clause 11- Modifications of licences etc: Parliamentary procedure.
	Government new clause 12- Licence modifications etc.
	Government new clause 13- Consequential amendments.
	New clause 2- Minimum time period for notification of price changes
	'The Secretary of State shall by regulations set down the period of notice which suppliers must give to their customers of changes in their tariffs before a change in tariffs can be made.'.
	New clause 18- Alterations to the threshold for upholding objections to modifications of the standard conditions of electricity licences-
	'(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit section 11A(6)(b) and insert-
	"(b) if one or more relevant licence holders give notice of objection to the Authority within that time-
	(i) the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant licence holders, calculated in accordance with subsection (7A), who have given notice of objection is less than the percentage set out in subsection (7B); and
	(ii) the percentage given by subsection (7) is less than the percentage set out in subsection (7B); or".
	(3) After section 11A(7) insert-
	"(7A) Where more than one relevant licence holder is in common ownership, these shall be collectively considered to be a single relevant licence holder for the purpose of calculating the percentage.
	(7B) The percentage shall be the higher of 50% or such other figure as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".'.
	New clause 21- Alterations to the threshold for upholding objections to modifications of the standard conditions of gas licences-
	'(1) The Gas Act 1986 is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit section 23(7)(b) and insert-
	"(b) if one or more relevant licence holders give notice of objection to the Authority within that time-
	(i) the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant licence holders, calculated in accordance with subsection (8A), who have given notice of objection is less than the percentage set out in subsection (8B); and
	(ii) the percentage given by subsection (8) is less than such percentage set out in subsection (8B); or".
	(3) After section 23(8) insert-
	"(8A) Where more than one relevant licence holder is in common ownership, these shall be collectively considered to be a single relevant licence holder for the purpose of calculating the percentage.
	(8B) The percentage shall be the higher of 50% or such other figure as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".'.
	New clause 22- Information on the profits of energy companies on energy bills-
	'The Secretary of State may modify-
	(a) a condition of the license of section 11A of the Electricity Act 1989 (transmission of licenses and supply licenses) to make provision on energy bills for information about the profits of electricity suppliers;
	(b) a condition of the license of section 23 (1) (b) of the Gas Act 1986 (transmission licences and supply licenses) to make provision on energy bills for information about the profits of gas suppliers; and
	(c) the standard conditions incorporated in the licenses under those provisions by virtue of those acts.'.
	Amendment 2, in clause 18, page 15, line 32, at end insert-
	'(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power in subsection (1) unless he or she is of the opinion that the modifications would not have adverse impacts on security of supply or investment in electricity generation capacity.'.
	Government amendments 15 to 18.
	Government amendments 20 to 35.
	Government new schedule 1 -'Consequential Amendments.

Joan Ruddock: With the exception of Government amendments 27 and 28, these amendments relate to the notification period within which energy companies must inform their customers or tariff changes. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), also relates to that matter.
	The current rules require suppliers to provide customers with written notice of a price increase within 65 working days of the change taking effect. That means that some customers may not be told that their gas or electricity price has been increased until almost three months after the change has taken place. Although consumers have a 20-day period following the notification within which they can switch supplies to avoid the price increase, it is simply unacceptable to have such a delay between a tariff change and notification. Best practice must surely be to notify before a price increase, so that customers can consider whether they want to switch to another supplier or budget for the higher costs before they come into effect.
	After a substantive debate on this issue in Committee, I wrote to Ofgem to highlight the strength of feeling of hon. Members, and to ask it to address the matter urgently. As the regulator, Ofgem is best placed to take steps to do that by changing licence conditions. It has responded to my letter, and announced that it will consult on the issue before Easter.
	Given normal time scales, I expect that Ofgem will take action by the end of the summer. My firm expectation is that it will address the issue effectively but, if it encounters difficulties, it is important that the Government are able to step in and remedy the situation.
	I am sorry to say that new clause 2, as drafted, would not work in practice. There needs to be a mechanism through which the Government can impose such a requirement on energy companies, as well as suitable enforcement measures to ensure compliance. That mechanism is the licence condition.
	Government new clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to modify licence conditions in electricity and gas supply licences and to set the notice period within which energy suppliers must notify consumers of tariff changes. As is standard practice, it sets out that any modifications should be subject to consultation.
	Government new clause 11 makes those modifications subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, a resolution of either House of Parliament would prevent the Secretary of State from making the modifications.
	Government new clause 9 includes a sunset clause. The Secretary of State will not be able to exercise his power after a period of three years from the provisions coming into force. That is because the situation requires urgent resolution. Taking these powers should give a clear signal to industry that the Government expect the issue to be resolved swiftly and are ready to take direct action if needed.
	The introduction of new Clause 9 leads to a restructuring of the Bill, as many provisions relating to licence modifications are common to more than one part. Amendments 15 to 18, 20 to 26 and 29 to 35 are technical: they restructure the Bill to take account of the consolidation of licence modification provisions set out in new clauses 11 and 12.
	Government new clause 10 applies the principal objective and general duties of the Secretary of State and Ofgem under part 1 of both the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986 to the exercise of this power, as well as to the exercise of any function by the Secretary of State or Ofgem under parts 2 or 3 of this Bill. This ensures that those functions will be exercised to protect the interests of existing and future consumers.
	Government new schedule 1 contains all the consequential amendments made necessary by the change, and collects together the existing consequential amendments required by the other clauses in this Bill.
	The remaining Government amendments in this group are amendments 27 and 28. These correct a technical and unintentional anomaly-which was the fault of the Government-in clause 23. They ensure that, in relation to appeals under the market power licence condition powers, the Competition Appeal Tribunal can change both the amount of the penalty and the day by which it, or part of it, is required to be paid.
	Amendment 2 aims to reduce any adverse impacts on security of supply and investment which may result from the market power licence condition introduced in clause 18 by making it an explicit requirement that before exercising the new powers, the Secretary of State should have considered these issues and be of the view that action would not affect them.
	Security of supply and the need for increased investment in electricity transmission are, of course, matters of prime importance. The market power licence condition has been purposefully structured to limit the market uncertainty which may have a negative impact on investment. Our intention is that it will apply only where there are transmission constraints in existence. It is narrow and proportionate to the specific problem identified by Ofgem and contains a tailored appeals process as an added support for companies. There will also be a full consultation process on the licence conditions and Ofgem's accompanying guidance document to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences and subsequent adverse impact on security of supply.
	Finally, the inclusion of a sunset clause that limits the operational life of the licence condition to five or seven years gives the industry the certainty that this is a targeted measure. After that period of time, we anticipate that there should be sufficient investment in the transmission network to remove the constraint scenarios that give rise to market power exploitation, and that the licence condition will therefore no longer be necessary.
	The amendment is unnecessary, although I understand and have sympathy with the reasons for tabling it. The narrow and targeted nature of the market power licence condition, together with its curtailed lifespan, will limit any investment uncertainty. In addition, the amendments to the duties of Ofgem and the Secretary of State introduced by clauses 16 and 17 will ensure that security of supply issues are considered when developing the licence condition.
	On new clauses 18 and 21, energy companies currently have the right to block licence modifications proposed by Ofgem if more than 20 per cent. of licence holders or companies with 20 per cent. of the market share object to the proposed change. We recognise that there are concerns that the 20 per cent. threshold is too low and could make it too easy for major energy suppliers to block or dilute change intended to benefit consumers. For example, in many cases it would require a combination of only two of the major electricity companies to reach the required blocking threshold and thus veto change.
	The 50 per cent. threshold proposed by the Lib Dems would make it more difficult for companies to veto Ofgem's changes to licence conditions, arguably enhancing Ofgem's ability to make timely changes for the benefit of consumers. There are, however, a number of risks associated with increasing the threshold, in particular the risk of inducing market uncertainty, which could impact adversely on much needed investment in the energy market and thus on security of supply. Given that changes to licence conditions can have potentially significant implications for a company's operations, it is appropriate that it should have an effective means of challenging these decisions.
	The new clauses also address the mechanics of the blocking threshold. The issue was raised with my officials recently by Consumer Focus. Currently, the percentage of licence holders required to meet the blocking threshold is calculated by either market share or the number of licensees. But with some large companies holding multiple licences, the balance of power can be distorted, with those larger companies finding it easier to block modifications as a result.
	The new clauses would change the rules so that there is one vote per group of affiliates, rather than one vote per licence holder, meaning that companies with multiple licences get only one vote instead of several, thereby levelling the playing field. It is not clear how much of an impact this change would have on larger companies, which will still find it easier to meet the market share blocking threshold. I accept that these issues merit attention and they are under active discussion in the Department. This is, however, a complex issue, and a quick legislative fix without a full understanding of the impacts is not necessarily the best way forward.

John Gummer: I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and, having some experience of listening to civil servants, I think that, on the proposal before us, she has had a rather big dose of, "Better not, Minister." Bluntly, it is not good enough to say, "We all understand how difficult this is and we all have to put it off until we get it right." The truth of the matter is that most of us would like to see the proposal introduced now, and, unless the Minister can explain that she really will take some measure to do what I think is absolutely essential, we will have to take the view that her response is yet another obfuscation by a Government who have not stood up to those companies as they should have.

Joan Ruddock: Perhaps I should regret having given way to the right hon. Gentleman. I was about to say that I am happy to provide an absolute assurance that we will further investigate both issues that the proposed change raises. They are under consideration and we are keen to do something about them.
	I am afraid that I must turn to yet another new clause, new clause 22. The aim of providing information on bills should be to help a consumer gain a full picture of their consumption and understand and minimise the costs that they are paying. Having information regarding company profits on the bill would not achieve any of those objectives. Ofgem has already taken steps to improve the information on bills and ensure that suppliers also provide customers with an annual statement. Bills will contain information on the customer's tariff, their energy consumption over the previous 12 months and the projected costs.
	The annual statement will also contain information on the terms and conditions of the tariff that the customer has chosen, arming them with the information that they will need should they wish to change their tariff or supplier. The rules will be fully implemented by this summer. As of October, Ofgem will also require the big six energy companies to publish revenue, costs and profits from their electricity generation and supply businesses, and from their gas supply businesses. That will provide consumers with better visibility of the profits and margins of their energy supplier.
	To summarise, I hope that Members will welcome new clauses 9 to 13, new schedule 1 and amendments 15 to 18 and 20 to 35. I hope that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will not press new clause 2 to a vote, and that Members will not press new clauses 18, 21 and 22 or amendment 2, either.

Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we have 13 minutes left as we begin the second of five groups of new clauses, new schedules and amendments, so I shall be brief in the hope that, between us, we can start to consider the third group before we have to vote.
	I am grateful to the Government for tabling new clauses 9 to 13 and the consequential amendments, which would introduce provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I sought to introduce in Committee-but which the Government voted against. A belated conversion is better than no conversion, and I am always willing to receive a better drafted amendment, but I just make it clear that we are doing something that we should never have had to do by legislation, because the situation should never have arisen. For the first time, we are ensuring that the big six energy companies tell people in advance of changes to their prices. Today, they can still tell people 65 working days after they have changed their prices, and that is just nonsense. They should never have been able to do so, and I am grateful that at last common sense has prevailed as a result of my party's pressure, which the Conservatives supported and, at last, the Government have acknowledged.
	That is, however, symptomatic of the problem that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) identified a moment ago and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I have identified all the way along. Late in the day, the Government have realised that the big six energy companies have called all the shots, and the regulator, Ofgem, which the Conservatives set up when they were in power and Labour allowed to continue, has just not been up to the job. That is why we have also tabled new clauses 18 and 21, which go together as a pair, and new clause 22. I shall briefly comment on each one.
	I would like to signal in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you are very kind and indulgent we would be grateful for votes on new clauses 18 and 22, but if not on both, then on one of them, at the 6 o'clock guillotine.
	New clauses 18 and 21 contain an absolutely straightforward proposal that was picked up on by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; I am grateful for his support. At the moment, if a company has a 20 per cent. share of the market, it can block any proposals by the regulator for changing the licence conditions. Yes, there is an appeal mechanism, which can be taken up to the Competition Commission, but the regulator has shown itself to be very reluctant to go down that route. We are seeking to ensure that one of the big six companies cannot alone prevent changes in the rules that would be against their interests. It is entirely wrong, and unacceptable, that in terms of prices and the way that the energy companies give people information about what they are doing, one company can hold consumers to ransom in this way. Our proposals are thoroughly supported by Consumer Focus, the consumers' representative group.
	Our second proposal would prevent energy companies from being able to collect a set of licences and thereby accumulate a similar power, under the radar, in a way that works against the fulfilment of consumers' wishes, as reflected by Ofgem.
	The third proposal is probably the most timely and would affect people most at the moment. Colleagues will probably be aware that on Monday, Ofgem, like a sleeping giant waking up to its obligations, produced a report on the prices that the gas and electricity companies have had to pay and the prices that they were charging their consumers. In summary, as was reported yesterday in many newspaper headlines and national news bulletins, energy suppliers are making more than £100 out of every customer by refusing to cut bills during the record freeze. We have had record cold weather, with people probably having had to use their energy supplies more than in any recent winter in living memory, and yet during that period the energy companies have had a larger share of profits than ever before.
	The figures for the big six companies-British Gas, Scottish Power, EDF Energy, npower, Scottish and Southern Energy and E.ON-show that in the last quarter, net profit margins per average dual fuel customer widened from £75 last November to £105 at the start of this month. That is the highest average margin enjoyed by the industry since 2004. In the next few days, we are expecting some of the big companies to report their profits, with possible increases in profits up as much as 50 per cent. and potential profits of up to £550 million. When bills such as the one that I have here drop through people's letterboxes telling them that prices are going up or staying the same, it is not an unreasonable proposition that the customer should know what profits are being made out of them by the big six energy companies. I am sad that the Minister resisted what seems to be an absolutely essential prerequisite for customer choice.
	Liberal Democrat Members take the simple view that, so far, the big energy companies have given Government and Ofgem the runaround, and Ofgem, instead of acting in the interests of the consumer, has been a toothless tiger. Prices have gone up for consumers, many of whom have low household incomes. People have been paying over the odds and the energy companies have been making massive profits. We have to change the balance of power, and all these new clauses are about doing that. The Government have conceded on one of them and we are grateful. However, that is just the beginning of what needs to be done, and it is sad that it is so little, so late, and that the Government are unlikely to accept the rest of the amendments.

Charles Hendry: As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, it is sad that we will not have more chance to debate these issues today. We have quite rightly had a substantial debate on carbon capture and storage and emissions performance standards, and it shows the folly and shortcomings of the timetabling of debates that we cannot have more time to discuss such important energy issues at a time when they are so relevant to people in this country.
	I welcome the Government's tidying-up amendments. They are not likely to win any plain English awards, as they are rather obscure, but we understand that they are important to make the Bill more substantive and put things in order. We also welcome very much the Government's response on the 65-day notification period. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on how he has pushed the matter forward. A 65-day period is simply too long and was unacceptable, and it is quite right that Ministers should now take a power to address the problem and require a reduction in the notification period if Ofgem does not act as we would all expect.
	I understand that the Minister's hope and preference is that tariffs should be announced in advance, so that there is no retrospection at all, or at worst within 10 days. That would return us to the situation that appertained before the Government changed the notification period to 65 days. We welcome that and hope that it can happen. We also welcome the sunset clause, which is appropriate in these circumstances. We need to act quickly, and that provision will put pressure on the Government and the regulator to do so in an appropriate way.
	There are other issues that we wished to address, such as concerns about profitability. We recognise that there is a case for openness and information for consumers, but one has to question why it should be uniquely on energy bills. When we buy a car or a holiday we do not need to know the company's profits, and with so many tariffs in existence it is hard to relate the profits of an energy company to the particular tariff that a customer is on and the contribution that they are making to those profits. Those matters need to be explored further with the Government, and we hope to have the chance to do so in due course.

John Gummer: I have no particular angst about the profits of energy companies. They ought to make profits, and I will not get tied up in the arguments about that. However, it is much better if energy companies are given the opportunity to work within a regime that the public think is fair. I therefore welcome what the Government have done, although they could have moved further on some of the issues that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) raised.
	The Government ought to be on the side of the energy companies. If the energy companies can work within a system that the public perceive as fair, it is much easier for them. If they work within a system that the public perceive as unfair, that does not help them to do what needs to be done. We need a real relationship between Government, energy companies and consumers to deliver a carbon-free economy. That is not easy, and we have to get it right. The current structure gives some of the less attractive elements of the media the ability to present the whole system in a way that is damaging to those of us who are fighting for a low-carbon, and finally non-carbon, economy.
	I hope the Minister will be tougher with her civil servants, so that we can find answers more quickly and clearly. Will she please also tell them that in future there shall be no occasion on which initials shall be used, and that she will explain things in a way that those who are watching on television can understand? I have been listening carefully to the debate, and I do not think anybody outside can have understood it. We have all used shorthand terms and words that do not mean anything to the general public. I beg her to get her officials to understand that we need a partnership with the general public, and we have to get it right. Frankly, we are not getting it right at the moment because we are not prepared to explain to people what we are trying to do in language that they understand.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	General duties of the Authority and the Secretary of State

'(1) Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties, as amended by section 16) apply to the carrying out, in relation to gas or holders of licences under section 7A(1) of that Act, of functions conferred on the Secretary of State or the Authority by or under Part 2 or 3 of this Act as they apply in relation to the carrying out of functions conferred on that person by or under Part 1 of that Act.
	(2) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties, as amended by section 17) apply to the carrying out, in relation to electricity or holders of licences under section 6(1) of that Act, of functions conferred on the Secretary of State or the Authority by or under Part 2 or 3 of this Act as they apply in relation to the carrying out of functions conferred on that person by or under Part 1 of that Act.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Modifications of licences etc: Parliamentary procedure

'(1) Before making modifications under section 18(1) (exploitation of electricity trading and transmission arrangements) or section [Modifications of supply licences: notice of unilateral changes to domestic supply contracts](1) (notice of unilateral changes to domestic supply contracts), the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the modifications before Parliament.
	(2) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State may not take any further steps in relation to the proposed modifications.
	(3) If no such resolution is made within that period, the Secretary of State may make the modifications in the form of the draft.
	(4) Subsection (2) does not prevent a new draft of proposed modifications being laid before Parliament.
	(5) In this section "40-day period", in relation to a draft of proposed modifications, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the 2 days on which it is laid).
	(6) For the purposes of calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Licence modifications etc

'(1) This section applies in relation to a power to make modifications conferred by-
	(a) section 11(1) (schemes for reducing fuel poverty);
	(b) section 18(1) (exploitation of electricity trading and transmission arrangements);
	(c) section [Modifications of supply licences: notice of unilateral changes to domestic supply contracts](1) (notice of unilateral changes to domestic supply contracts).
	(2) Subsection (5) also applies in relation to the power conferred by section 25(7) (expiry of power conferred by section 18(1)).
	(3) The power-
	(a) may be exercised generally, only in relation to specified cases or subject to exceptions (including provision for a case to be excepted only so long as specified conditions are satisfied);
	(b) may be exercised differently in different cases;
	(c) includes a power to make incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional modifications.
	(4) Provision included in licences by virtue of the power may make different provision for different cases.
	(5) The Secretary of State must publish details of any modifications as soon as reasonably practicable after they are made.
	(6) A modification of part of a standard condition of a particular licence does not prevent any other part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the 1986 Act or Part 1 of the 1989 Act.
	(7) Where the Secretary of State makes a modification of the standard conditions of a licence of any type, the Authority must-
	(a) make the same modification of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in licences of that type granted after that time, and
	(b) publish the modification.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

'The Schedule (consequential amendments) has effect.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 Proceedings interrupted  (Programme Order, 7 December) .
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E)

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Emissions performance standard

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce an Emissions Performance Standard to apply to new electricity generation plant.
	(2) In this section "Emission Performance Standard" means a restriction on the amount of carbon dioxide that electricity generation plant can emit.
	(3) In setting such a level, the Secretary of State must take account of the latest information available to him on-
	(a) the most up-to-date scientific knowledge about climate change;
	(b) the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, particularly in relation to carbon budgets, medium and long-term emission reduction targets, and future emissions from the electricity generating sector;
	(c) the affordability of electricity prices for consumers; and
	(d) national energy security.
	(4) The Secretary of State must set out his proposals for consultation within six months of the passage of this Act, with final proposals to be placed before Parliament within 12 months.'.- (Alan Simpson.)
	 Brought up .
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 252.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Alterations to the threshold for upholding objections to modifications of the standard conditions of electricity licences

'(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit section 11A(6)(b) and insert-
	"(b) if one or more relevant licence holders give notice of objection to the Authority within that time-
	(i) the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant licence holders, calculated in accordance with subsection (7A), who have given notice of objection is less than the percentage set out in subsection (7B); and
	(ii) the percentage given by subsection (7) is less than the percentage set out in subsection (7B); or".
	(3) After section 11A(7) insert-
	"(7A) Where more than one relevant licence holder is in common ownership, these shall be collectively considered to be a single relevant licence holder for the purpose of calculating the percentage.
	(7B) The percentage shall be the higher of 50% or such other figure as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".'.- (Simon Hughes.)
	 Brought up.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 63, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6
	 — 
	CCS demonstration projects and additional CCS use

Amendments made: 3, page 5, line 23, leave out 'coal-fired'.
	Amendment 4, page 5, line 28, leave out 'coal-fired'.
	Amendment 5, page 5, line 34, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.
	Amendment 6, page 5, line 37, leave out 'coal-fired'.
	Amendment 7, page 6, line 1, leave out 'coal-fired'.
	Amendment 8, page 6, line 2 , leave out from 'scale' to end of line 5.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 7
	 — 
	Interpretation of Part

Amendment made: 9, page 6, line 14, at end insert-
	' "carbon capture and storage technology" has the meaning given in section 6;'.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 8
	 — 
	Schemes for reducing fuel poverty

Amendments made: 10, page 6, line 27, after 'requiring' insert 'benefits to be provided by'.
	Amendment 11, page 6, line 27, leave out 'to provide benefits' and insert-
	'( ) A scheme must provide for the benefits provided under it, taken as a whole, to be provided wholly or mainly'.
	Amendment 12, page 7, line 5, leave out 'to scheme customers'.
	Amendment 13, page 7, line 11, at end insert-
	'( ) benefits to be provided in the form of goods or services.'.
	Amendment 14, page 7, line 29, leave out 'to scheme customers'.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 11
	 — 
	Reconciliation mechanism: licence modifications

Amendments made: 15, page 9, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 and insert-
	'( ) Provision included by virtue of the power in subsection (1) in licences, or in a document or agreement relating to licences'.
	Amendment 16, page 10, line 1, at end insert-
	'( ) Without prejudice to section [Licence modifications etc](4), provision included by virtue of that power in a document or agreement relating to licences'.
	Amendment 17, page 10, line 9, leave out subsections (5) to (7).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 12
	 — 
	Functions of Authority and Secretary of State under Part 2

Amendment made: 18, page 10, line 22, leave out subsections (1) and (2).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 14
	 — 
	Schemes for reducing fuel poverty: interpretation

Amendment made: 19, page 12, line 7, leave out '7A' and insert '7A(1)'.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 15
	 — 
	Schemes for reducing fuel poverty: consequential amendments

Amendment made: 20, page 12, line 20, leave out Clause 15.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 18
	 — 
	Power to make modifications

Amendments made: 21, page 16, line 16, leave out 'by virtue of' and insert 'under'.
	Amendment 22, page 16, line 21, at end insert-
	'(8A) Before making modifications under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult-
	(a) holders of licences under section 6(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 1989,
	(b) the Authority, and
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to consult.
	(8B) Subsection (8A) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, this Act comes into force.'.
	Amendment 23, page 16, line 22, leave out subsection (9).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 19
	 — 
	Modifications: procedure

Amendmen t made: 24, in page 17, line 8, leave out Clause 19. - (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 20
	 — 
	Modifications: supplementary

Amendment  made: 25, page 17, line 35, leave out Clause 20.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 22
	 — 
	Final and provisional orders: appeals

Amendment made: 26, page 19, line 16, leave out subsection (10).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 23
	 — 
	Penalties: appeals

Amendments made: 27, page 19, line 38, at end insert-
	'(d) vary any date by which the penalty, or any part of it, is required to be paid.'.
	Amendment 28, page 19, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment 29, page 20, line 14, leave out subsection (10).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 25
	 — 
	Expiry of power

Amendment made: 30, page 21, line 24, leave out subsection (8) and insert-
	'(8) Before making a modification under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must consult-
	(a) holders of licences under section 6(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 1989,
	(b) the Authority, and
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to consult.'.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 27
	 — 
	Adjustment of charges to help disadvantaged groups of customers

Amendment made: 31, page 22, line 38, leave out subsections (8) and (9).- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 31
	 — 
	Amendments and Appeals

Amendment made: 32, page 25, line 22, leave out Clause 31.- (Joan Ruddock.)

Clause 36
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: 33, page 27, line 15, after 'Part' insert
	', apart from section [Consequential amendments] (and the Schedule),'.
	Amendment 34, page 27, line 16, leave out 'Sections 18 to 25' and insert 'The following provisions'.
	Amendment 35, page 27, line 17, at end insert-
	'(a) sections 18 to 25;
	(b) paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Schedule (and, so far as relating to them, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Schedule and section [Consequential amendments]).'.- (Joan Ruddock.)

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

Gas Act 1986 (c.44)
	1 The Gas Act 1986 is amended as follows.
	2 (1) In section 28(8) (orders for securing compliance), in the definition of "relevant requirement" -
	(a) for", 33F, 41A or 41B" substitute "or 33F";
	(b) at the end insert "or section 8 or 10 of the Energy Act 2010 (schemes for reducing fuel poverty) or sections 27 to 30 of that Act (adjustment of charges to help disadvantaged groups of customers)".
	(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be taken to limit the kind of provision that can be made by regulations under section 8 or 10 about enforcement of a requirement imposed by, or payment of a sum due under, the regulations.
	3 Omit sections 41A and 41B (adjustment of charges to help disadvantaged groups of electricity customers).
	4 In section 64(2) (provisions as to orders), omit "41A,".
	Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)
	5 The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	6 (1) In section 25 (8) (orders for securing compliance), in the definition of "relevant requirement" -
	(a) for ",42C, 43A or 43B" substitute "or 42C";
	(b) at the end insert "or section 8 or 10 of the Energy Act 2010 (schemes for reducing fuel poverty) or sections 27 to 30 of that Act (adjustment of charges to help disadvantaged groups of customers)".
	(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be taken to limit the kind of provision that can be made by regulations under section 8 or 10 about enforcement of a requirement imposed by, or payment of a sum due under, the regulations.
	7 In section 27 (validity and effect of orders), after subsection (8) insert-
	"(9) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply in the case of a final or provisional order that relates to a relevant condition imposed by the exercise of the power in section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2010 (prevention of exploitation of electricity trading and transmission arrangements).
	(10) for provision about appeals relating to such orders, see section 22 of the Energy Act 2010."
	8 In section 27E (appeals), after subsection (9) insert-
	"(10) This section does not apply in the case of a penalty that relates to a relevant condition imposed by the exercise of the power in section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2010 (prevention of exploitation of electricity trading and transmission arrangements).
	(11) For provision about appeals relating to such penalties, see section 23 of the Energy Act 2010."
	9 Omit sections 43A and 43B (adjustment of charges to help disadvantaged groups of gas customers).
	10 In section 106(2) (provisions as to orders), omit "43A,".
	Utilities Act 2000 (c.27)
	11 The Utilities Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	12 In section 33(1) (standard conditions of electricity licences)-
	(a) after paragraph (c) omit "or";
	(b) after paragraph (d) insert "or
	(e) under the Energy Act 2010."
	13 Omit section 69 (help for disadvantaged groups of electricity customers).
	14 In section 81 (2) (standard conditions of gas licences)-
	(a) for "2004 or" substitute "2004,";
	(b) after "2008" insert "or under the Energy Act 2010".
	15 Omit section 98 (help for disadvantaged groups of gas customers).
	16 In section 105 (general restrictions on disclosure of information)-
	(a) in subsection (1), after "2004" insert "or Part 2 or section 28 or 29 of the Energy Act 2010";
	"(b) in subsection (3)(a), after "2008" insert", Part 2 or section 29 of the Energy Act 2010".'. - (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.
	Title
	 Amendment made: 36, in title, line 2, after 'technology;' insert
	'to make provision about reports on decarbonisation of electricity generation and development and use of carbon capture and storage technology;'.- (Joan Ruddock.)
	 Third Reading

Edward Miliband: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	I thank Members for their contributions since Second Reading. I particularly thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)-who has done such a fantastic job in leading our work on the Bill-and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), for their able steering of the legislation. I also thank my hon. Friends, and Opposition spokespeople and Back Benchers, for their contributions.
	The work that has been done has helped to strengthen the Bill in a number of respects. It has helped in relation to the scope of the CCS incentive, the reporting of progress towards decarbonising our electricity supply, and consumer protection. The relatively speedy passage of the Bill has been due partly to the able work done in Committee, and partly because it was designed as a short Bill that could make swift progress before a general election. Our task now is to send the Bill to the other place so that it can make further progress.

Lembit �pik: rose-

Edward Miliband: I want to deal with the main aspects of the Bill briefly, in view of the time and because other Members wish to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Lembit �pik: Obviously it is important for the Bill to be passed in the House of Commons, but does the Secretary of State accept that practical issues remain with which it cannot deal? I am thinking, for example, of the transport of equipment relating to wind turbines in my constituency, which is a very vexing issue. May I report to the Secretary of State after my ministerial meeting about it? It might be useful for him to understand, in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole, practical issues that concern local communities.

Edward Miliband: I admire the hon. Gentleman's characteristic ingenuity in inserting a question about the transport of wind turbines into a Third Reading debate. I look forward to hearing from him-even if it is too late for the purposes of the Bill-about what more can be done about that important issue.
	The Bill contains a number of important provisions. The most important involves carbon capture and storage, and the levy to fund it. It should be emphasised that, by common consent, we now have the most environmentally ambitious coal conditions in the world, and I hope that we are nearing a growing consensus on conditions for new coal-fired power stations. It is important to send the message about investment in those stations.
	Our framework is important not just because of the objective that carbon capture and storage should be ready for commercial deployment in 2020, but because of the demand. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, no other country has produced the formulation that a substantial proportion of any new coal-fired power station must involve carbon capture and storage. We will not allow building of unabated coal-fired stations. I thank all Members, and indeed members of the wider community who take an interest in these important matters, for their campaigns.
	The Bill represents a milestone in that regard, and it also represents a milestone because of the consumer levy. It will add 2 to 3 per cent. to bills in 2020-we should be up front about that-but it is the right thing to do if we are make the environmental progress needed in the power sector, and also to guarantee our energy security. We know that in today's world, the best form of energy security is low-carbon energy security, and we know that carbon capture and storage represents the only way we can achieve that in relation to coal.
	The first and most important part of the Bill from Labour's point of view relates to the CCS incentive. However, we are aware that the low-carbon transition involves costs, and it is important for us to take all the action we can to protect consumers from those costs. There have been significant advances recently, such as those for people on prepayment meters; a number of Members have raised that matter in the House. A year ago, people on prepayment meters paid £41 more for their energy than standard credit customers; today that differential has, effectively, been eliminated.
	There is much more to do, however, so the Bill makes a series of changes in a number of areas, including reform of the regulator's powers, sending a message to the regulator about the role of competition, but also including proactive work by the regulator. There is also the market power licence condition, to try to ensure greater fairness for consumers. Another of the changes-that to do with the information that must be given to customers-was debated on Report. That, too, has been a campaigning issue for Members. It is right that proper information should be provided to consumers. As has been said, either that will be done by Ofgem or it will have to be done by Government. We are sending out a clear message. This suite of new powers is very important. It significantly strengthens the ability of the regulator to ensure that the costs of energy are fair to all consumers.
	Another aspect of the Bill that should be highlighted is the action on fuel poverty. A lot has been done on that, but at a time of higher energy prices, there are much greater upward pressures in respect of fuel poverty. We have taken action on incomes, prices and energy efficiency, but again, there is more to do. I should mention one important change. We have turned a voluntary commitment by the energy companies-negotiated by my predecessor in this policy area-to provide help for vulnerable consumers, into a compulsory or mandatory commitment. I suspect this power to provide a mandatory commitment to ensure fairness for the most vulnerable consumers will become more important as the years go by. We have set out a trajectory for the amount of money that will be spent under this power: in 2013-14 the total will be £300 million.
	If I may hazard a prediction, I think that future Governments will find that this power becomes more important. It constitutes a redistribution to the poorest consumers, and it sits alongside other measures that we take to protect vulnerable consumers, such as the winter fuel payment. It is an important recognition that, at a time when the transition to low carbon imposes costs on consumers, we must do all we can to protect the vulnerable. It is a very important change, which will stand the test of time, and I hope it will be welcomed by all Members. There have also been amendments to the Bill clarifying that mandatory price support could provide help other than direct financial benefits.
	It is a short Bill, but it puts in place important measures in respect of the transition to low carbon. The CCS levy delivers an unprecedented amount of investment, not just in Britain but around the world, into CCS, which is a crucial technology for the future. The strengthening of the powers of the regulator is essential moving forward, as we face upward pressures on prices. There is also specific support for the most vulnerable.
	I have no doubt that in the remainder of the debate Members will say that lots of other measures should have been included in the Bill. That is, at least, what the Opposition said on Second Reading, but we can never tell whether there will be consistency. What is clear, however, is that this Bill takes important steps forward. The task now is to send the Bill to the other place and to get the legislation on to the statute book, because the task is urgent and we all must ensure that we make speedy progress.
	I hope all Members will support the Bill. I think it makes important progress. We always welcome consensus on these issues, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Greg Clark: I would love to say what I think should be in this Bill, but I think that you would prevent me from doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall have to contain myself. We can at least agree, in the spirit of consensus, that the great advantage of a Bill that does not contain much is that it provides little with which to disagree-and that is the position this evening. As the Secretary of State says, on energy-related issues more than most there is an imperative for the Government and the Opposition parties to maximise the scope for long-term agreement.
	I am glad to say that the Bill has occasioned some agreement across party lines, although that has not always necessarily involved the Front-Bench teams. Our most recent discussions have shown that the argument was won by my Conservative colleagues, and by the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Angus (Mr. Weir), even if the majority that the Government enjoy allowed them to push their proposal through. I hope that Ministers will reflect on that expression, which clearly portrayed the feeling of the House in that very good debate.
	May I wholeheartedly join the Secretary of State in thanking all those who have worked on the Bill during its passage? I wish to express my particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). As shadow Energy Minister he has outlasted several of his opposite numbers, and his knowledge and experience have clearly shone through, both today and in his work on the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for St. Albans (Anne Main), who took the often technical subject matter to heart and gave their all.
	I am sure that we can look forward to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for many Parliaments to come, but I am conscious also of the contribution made to the passage of this Bill by Members of the House who are stepping down at the forthcoming general election. The issues at stake in this Bill are of long-term importance and I wish to pay tribute to those retiring Members who served with distinction during the passage of the Bill. When future generations look back on this era and ask what our generation did about the energy and climate change crises of the 21st century, they will judge the record not only of Governments but of Parliaments. The judgment of history on us all will be the kinder for the contribution made by outstanding parliamentarians such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).
	I also recognise the consistent dedication of Members from all parties, in particular the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), whose contribution today showed that he is the most vertebrate-I use his description-of Members of this House, the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), who is also stepping down and who has made a contribution to these debates, and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who is also retiring as Chair of a Select Committee. Their presence will be much missed in the House, but I trust that they will continue to enrich public life in other ways.
	With their work in mind, I wish that this Bill presented a more substantial legacy, but it is not entirely without substance. As the Secretary of State says, it provides a long-overdue framework for the demonstration of carbon capture and storage. Although we have lost ground to other countries, it is not too late for Britain to establish a leading position in this emerging global industry. If the Bill is passed, a Conservative Government would certainly not hesitate to use its provisions wherever that would be of help to the UK CCS industry.
	The second main area of provision in the Bill concerns the role of Ofgem. Any clarification in that regard is welcome, because as things stand it is not clear who is responsible for what in UK energy policy. In particular, we have seen Ofgem take an increasingly high-profile role in shaping policy at the strategic level, especially through the Project Discovery exercise. It is, of course, better to have some part of the machinery of government taking a comprehensive view of our future energy needs than to have no part doing so, but that part ought to be in the Department, in support of Ministers who are democratically accountable to Parliament.
	The third and final leg of the Bill deals with the introduction of schemes for the reduction of fuel poverty, including mandatory social price support. It is ironic that we should be legislating on this matter in the year that fuel poverty was due to be eliminated, according to some of the Government's targets: well, there we are. Some useful powers are included in this leg. The measures in the Bill to protect the most vulnerable customers are welcome as a last line of defence, but they do not constitute the cost minimisation strategy that should underpin energy policy. We would have liked the Bill to contain more on energy efficiency.
	In our view, energy policy should have four main objectives: security, sustainability, economy and opportunity. Achieving all four will require an approach to policy that is both timely and comprehensive. The Bill is not timely but overdue, and it is not comprehensive but partial-yet every journey begins with a single step. This Bill takes more than a single step in the right direction. That is why, as it proceeds to another place, it does so with our support.

Simon Hughes: May I join the Secretary of State and his Conservative opposite number in paying tribute to all those who have carried out this bit of work with mutual respect and courtesy in a businesslike way? Everyone who has participated has done so in that spirit. I thank the Ministers who led the Bill through Committee for their engagement with the issues. They did not always deliver what we wanted, but they were willing to answer questions. On one subject, they did not even deliver the document we wanted-the Government's policy on how all homes might be warm homes-although at least they promised that it was somewhere and would be seen one day. We will still be waiting.
	I join the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in paying tribute to those colleagues who are not on the Front Benches. I pay tribute to them all in general, but want to single out two. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He is not with us at this second, but throughout his career he has been unqualifiedly unrelenting in arguing methodically and effectively on these issues. We will miss him hugely in these debates. I am sad that he has decided to step down. I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who served with me in Committee, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who has supported me and performed today- [ Interruption. ] And he has just come back.
	May I add one other name to those to whom I pay tribute? On Second Reading, David Taylor was with us and he participated in the debate. He took a great interest in this area of policy. I have not yet paid tribute to him but, on my behalf and that of my colleagues, may I add to the tributes that have been paid to him? Through his family, I want to say thank you for the efforts and contribution he made.
	In summary, this Bill takes some good small steps in the right direction. Although it is clearly too little and too late, the steps are welcome. It is better that we go down the road of trying to have carbon capture and storage to deal with our coal industry in the future, although it is to be regretted that we missed by just nine votes taking the opportunity to add emissions performance standards. I hope that the House of Lords gets the Bill soon enough to be able to remedy that. In the House of Lords, of course, the Government do not have a majority.
	I am pleased that the Government saw the need, at last, after much pressure, to put on a statutory rather than a voluntary footing for the energy companies measures to try to reduce what is colloquially called fuel poverty. It is sad that in this country so many people still pay more than 10p in the pound or £10 in £100-the definition of fuel poverty-for their fuel bills. It is sad that the target for the most vulnerable has not been met, that the number in that level of financial difficulty has gone up, and that the targets set for 2015 will not be met. I hope that the Bill will have reminded everybody to increase their efforts to deal with that problem and I regret that we were unable to win the argument to obtain a commitment to a policy that would make every home in this country a warm home over 10 years from the end of the current schemes in 2012. My colleagues and I will continue to argue for that.
	The greatest regret-although the Opposition parties' one success occurred in the same area-is that we did not manage to beef up the powers and effectiveness of the regulator. We achieved one success, in that the Minister of State was kind enough to recognise our request in Committee to require the energy companies to change the rules about pricing so that they must tell consumers in advance of any changes. The Government accepted that request and today we have amended the Bill to put that mechanism in it. That is welcome.
	It is frustrating that other things that we think would have helped hugely to even out the balance between consumer and energy company-allowing easy comparison between tariffs, limiting the number of tariffs, stopping the veto power of the energy companies and showing, to expose the issue, how much profit the energy companies make from the individual consumer-have not been adopted. We will return to those issues.
	The Bill was published on 19 November. It has taken three months to get it through the House even though there was willingness on both sides to make progress. It had its Second Reading on 7 December and left Committee on 21 January-more than a month ago. I sincerely hope that the Government will not be as dilatory in taking the Bill to the Lords and giving them the opportunity to improve it. We all understand the pressures of the last Session of a Parliament, but if the Government are serious about energy policy as a priority, we expect that to be reflected in the House of Lords.
	Let me end on this point. Two of the three great future challenges for our country are climate security and energy security. The third is economic security-by definition, they come together. Unless we remain absolutely clear, as Front Benchers have, that the threat to the planet from climate change caused by human activities is so serious that we need always to take precautionary action, a much more serious position will face the next Parliament, the next Government-whoever they are-and the Governments after them. Front Benchers have a duty to stand together on this issue, and our friends on the Conservative Benches must be tough with their colleagues who do not appear to understand the urgency of these matters.
	The Government, to their credit, understand the urgency. They came to the issue late, but they now understand where we need to go. I hope that people will understand in future that we need not just to legislate effectively and in advance of issues on the energy agenda, but policies that will change the use, abuse and waste of energy in this country so that we conserve it better and become far more efficient, as well as policies that will move us to renewables as fast as possible. I hope that, if that happens, energy policy will not be so controversial and that the risks to society will not be so great in the years ahead.

William Cash: I have listened to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), but I must say that he seems not to have taken account of the genuine concerns about some of the assumptions that have been made about climate change. However, I shall not elaborate on that as there is no need to do so now.
	I have taken an active interest in the whole energy question, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: energy security lies at the heart of our economic security. I commend everyone in the House for their realism on that point. However, I do not believe that wind farms, particularly onshore wind farms, are the right way in which to achieve part of that energy security. That applies particularly in environments such as my constituency where, to put it bluntly, they are totally unjustified.
	I acknowledge that there should be an energy mix and that offshore wind farms have some merit. I suspect from my previous exchanges with the Secretary of State that he agrees with me about carbon capture, about which I have campaigned for as long as I can remember. I believe profoundly in British coal, which should be part of our energy security and part of our foreign policy, and I applaud those who are in favour of it, including those in Government circles. If we can develop proper carbon capture methods and get things right, we will be able to supplement the energy security that we really need. Those of us who are rather more sceptical, to say the least, about climate change as a whole will none the less acknowledge certain changes. It has been pretty cold recently, as I am sure people will acknowledge. There are important issues in the mix; carbon capture is definitely a plus, and wind farms are definitely a minus.

David Heath: I want to make a small contribution to Third Reading. First, I welcome the Bill. The Government are to be applauded for the steps that they are taking in it, as carbon capture and storage is a crucial area. I applaud the fact that they are pushing ahead with this agenda in this country, and I know from my personal involvement that they are also actively arguing the case in other countries, in particular the US. The UK is showing a crucial bit of evangelical zeal in persuading others that we need to embrace this technology as part of the mix.
	I also welcome the measures on fuel poverty. I will not rehearse the arguments contained in my ill fated Bill of last Session, other than to say that I wish that the Government had embraced it. However, these measures are, once again, a step in the right direction, and I am pleased that at least some requirements are being put on the energy supply companies.
	If I may say so, however, the Bill contains a big lacuna with regard to the fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas used by people who live in rural areas such as the one that I represent. The continuing problem is that the people who can least afford it have to pay the most for the most expensive fuel, and we need to address that.
	My final point has been touched on by others. This Bill is part of getting the whole mix right, especially in the encouragement that it gives to all forms of renewable forms of energy, but there are still inconsistencies in the Government's approach. I was a strong supporter of feed-in tariffs: I believe that it was right to introduce them and I am pleased that the Government finally adopted them, but I want to say a word on behalf of one small group of people engaged in renewable energy generation in my constituency. They use micro hydro to generate electricity and power. They often bring historic buildings back into use, but they are faced with a feed-in tariff system that involves a microgeneration certificate scheme that is wholly impractical and which in fact acts as a deterrent. Only this week, I had a message from one of them to say that they get 12p per kWh at the moment but that, as a result of the feed-in tariff, they will get only 9p.
	I honestly do not think that reducing income by 25 per cent. is a good way to encourage people down a path that we want them to take. I would very much welcome an opportunity to see a Minister about that in the near future, if at all possible. I would like to bring along a group of the people engaged in micro hydro, so that the Government can understand their problem and make sure that their arguments are understood.

Edward Miliband: indicated assent.

David Heath: I see the Secretary of State nodding, and I am most grateful for his assertion that he would be willing to see a delegation from my constituency. I shall make immediate arrangements so that we can put that meeting in place before the election. That was the major point that I wanted to make. Having secured that agreement, I think it entirely proper that I sit down.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated Legislation

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Climate Change

That the draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Public Health

That the draft Health Protection (Part 2A Orders) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
	That the draft Health Protection (Local Authority Powers) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
	That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

Countryside

That the draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

Representation of the People, Scotland

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.-( Mr. Heppell.)
	 Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion 11.

John Heppell: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No. Motion 11.

John Heppell: I beg to move.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11),

Alternative Investment Fund Managers

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9494/09 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2004/39/EC and 2009/.../EC, and No. 15162/09, Opinion of the European Central Bank of 16 October 2009 on a Draft Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2004/39/EC and 2009/.../EC; and endorses the Government's approach in seeking agreement to the Directive.- ( (Mr. Heppell.)

Madam Deputy Speaker: The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye. [Hon. Members: Aye.] Of the contrary, No. [Hon. Members: No.] Under the Orders of the House relating to deferred Divisions, the Division is deferred until half past 12 o'clock on Wednesday next.

Martin Horwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not yet 7 o'clock.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is true; I acknowledge that we are not quite at 7 pm. I was somewhat misled by the earlier comments.

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 63.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITIONS

Spinal Cord Injuries (Physiotherapy)

Andrew Pelling: The organiser of this petition, Mr. Wayne Evans, has himself determinedly fought the effects of spinal cord injury. I am therefore very pleased to read the petition, which states:
	The Petition of People of the London Borough of Croydon,
	Declares that there is no provision within the NHS outpatient physiotherapy services of an ongoing exercise regime to improve overall health, fitness and wellbeing for persons with a spinal cord injury; further declares that the petitioners believe that, without such a regime, such persons will undoubtedly in the future require continuing NHS health care services as inpatients.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that such an ongoing exercise regime is made available by the NHS outpatient physiotherapy services to all persons who have a spinal cord injury.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000740]

Station Footbridge Repair

Ian Liddell-Grainger: This is a petition on behalf of the people of Watchet and the West Somerset railway, signed by 1,200 of my constituents.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Residents of Watchet and others,
	Declares that the footbridge at Watchet station is closed at present, because it is unsafe to use; declares that the closure is seriously inconvenient to residents and could endanger safety; further declares that there is a risk that the footbridge at Watchet station will be lost permanently, because insufficient funds are available for its safe repair and maintenance.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to assist and encourage the West Somerset District Council to repair the footbridge as soon as possible.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000742]

Gaza

Mark Williams: The petition was collected by Mrs. Elizabeth Morley of Ceredigion and others, and it is concerning Israeli actions in the Gaza strip.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Ceredigion,
	Declares that the Government should fulfil its responsibilities as a high contracting party to the 4th Geneva Convention.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately take steps to institute a war crimes investigation in the UK into Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip between 27th December and 18th January 2009, and for the UK prosecuting authorities to search out and prosecute (or extradite for trial elsewhere) all suspected war criminals identified by the investigation; and urges the Government to seek a binding resolution at the UN Security Council to establish an international commission of inquiry into the Gaza attacks and the referral of potential cases to the International Criminal Court.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000741]

BEAM PARK WEST PRISON SITE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)

Jon Cruddas: I must admit that I find myself in a slightly strange position, in that the concerns that led me to seek this debate have actually been resolved. The case of the Beam Park West prison site demonstrates that sometimes in Parliament, one can be overtaken by fast-moving events.
	I shall explain. I requested this Adjournment debate on 9 February and it was granted on 11 February. The idea was to present a reasoned, constructive contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the proposed Beam Park West prison, which was planned to be located in Dagenham, in my constituency. I also wanted, again in a rational way, to articulate some of the many concerns that had been raised with me locally and give a voice to local residents in a process that, like the siting of any proposed prison, has been difficult. I anticipated that the debate would give me a chance to lay out the responses that we had received to our local consultations on the plans, not least because the local authority consultation finished earlier this week.
	However, on 12 February, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would not proceed with the proposed prison development, which accounts for the strange position that I find myself in this evening. I readily concede that the decision was not singularly driven by the agreement of the parliamentary authorities to this somewhat small, insignificant debate in the parliamentary calendar. However, as a politician I am quite prepared to take credit-even I realise that it is an unlikely turn of events, though. I doubt that my being awarded the debate was a determining factor in the process of public policy making in the MOJ.
	Joking aside, the announcement on the 12th of this month somewhat alters the nature of my contribution. Instead, I now wish to take this opportunity to place on record, on behalf of many thousands of my constituents, my deep appreciation of and thanks to Ministers and officials for their open dialogue with us regarding the proposed project, over an arc of 10 months. I also wish to put on record my gratitude to local people for their thoughtful and constructive contributions throughout the discussion, despite blatant and cynical electioneering by another political party-not necessarily the Opposition. Finally, I shall raise a number of points on the process and the future of the Beam Park West site.
	It would be useful at the beginning briefly to review the cycle of events regarding the proposed prison development. On 27 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice announced Beam Park West as the designated site for a 1,500-inmate, category B prison, the rationale being the projected prison expansion to 96,000 inmates by 2014 and the need for extra capacity. The Government announced the need for five new prisons, or 7,500 places, alongside the closure of 5,000 inefficient places. On Monday this week, the Justice Secretary returned to that subject when discussing prisoner early release schemes. The current prison population stands at some 83,800, which is up from 60,300 in 1997. We now have well over 86,000 places in terms of operational capacity. He reiterated this week that the plans for 2014 are on track given the capacity building programme.
	Following the April announcement, we raised a series of technical issues regarding the proposed development, including the required transport infrastructure, not least because of earlier community fears that the new Mayor of London was not necessarily in favour of the extension of the docklands light railway to Dagenham and beyond. We were also concerned about the costings of the project; the implications of the time line of the development for the local community; the planning process, not least because of the existence of an urban development corporation in east London; and the land remediation and decontamination that would be required because the development would have been on the old Ford car plant site. Moreover, we raised questions on the consultation process that was envisaged and many other issues, including how to get local people genuinely involved and to feel that they had a stake in the process.
	I met the appropriate officials on a number of times, as well as the Secretary of State, the Minister and her predecessor. To his great credit, the Secretary of State visited the site in October 2009. He canvassed opinion and discussed the concerns of the local people by literally going door to door in the community opposite the proposed prison site. That was a most impressive and honest contribution to the debate, and it was very much appreciated in the locality.
	At the same time, technical analysis of the site revealed the scale of possible flooding and the decontamination required. Dealing with those problems would have added to the cost of what was already a £1.2 billion project, excluding VAT and the cost of purchasing the site.
	That led to the 12 February announcement, but a couple of earlier developments are worth noting. There was an earlier plan for an 800-inmate prison on the Beam Reach 5 site, which literally lies a few hundred yards from the site we are discussing tonight but which is in the neighbouring London borough of Havering. Following the publication in December 2002 of Lord Carter of Coles's report, Securing the future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales, a list of potential sites for 2,500-place Titan prisons was drawn up. It was subsequently revealed under a freedom of information request that that list included no fewer than 12 sites, but not the Beam Park West site. That was acknowledged in a written parliamentary answer on 1 June.
	The Beam Park West site was identified during an exercise to identify potential sites for a prison in London-a search that was undertaken jointly with the London Development Agency. Of interest here is the revelation in a written answer on 3 June that that joint search followed a meeting between MOJ officials and the Mayor of London in mid-2008. The suggestion that has been made to me is that the Beam Park West site was preferred by the Mayor of London to the earlier site, which was confusingly known as Beam Reach 5 because it was situated in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham rather than in Havering. I do not know whether that is true, not least because the Mayor did not respond to me regarding that and a number of other issues related to the proposed prison. However, it is curious that the Beam Park West site was identified even though it was not on the earlier extensive site list, and following a meeting with the new Mayor, who had in turn been heavily lobbied by the neighbouring borough prior to becoming Mayor. I simply suggest that the move was the result of a nudge across a borough border following a discussion with the new Mayor. That should not be the source of any local celebrations. Interestingly, the new location was much closer to many of the Havering residents in South Hornchurch and Elm Park than the earlier identified site location. Indeed, the proposed second prison would have been much bigger-not an insignificant factor for local residents. I raise this point not least because a letter to the Mayor containing a series of questions about his involvement in this process remains unanswered.
	Given the announcement of the Beam Park West site on 29 April, the task at hand was to create opportunities to contribute and measure the community responses regarding the proposed new site-not in a melodramatic way, shouting and screaming, but to seek a thorough understanding of local feelings about the proposition. To that end, we decided to survey some 32,000 households in the local community, covering some 65,000 individual residents. The Barking and Dagenham council also decided to consult formally the residents in the two specific wards located next to the proposed site, Village ward and River ward.
	The responses to the consultation were overwhelming. We received more than 17,000 responses to our surveys of local opinion. More than 90 per cent. of the responses were against the proposed development, mostly on the grounds of its residential setting, but also because the local council had earmarked the site for major sports facilities for local people. A Facebook group registering concerns regarding the proposed development managed to secure well over 14,100 participants. With the aid of an online survey, as well as petitions and responses to other leaflets, we offered various opportunities for local contributions to be made.
	Moreover, more than 1,000 responses were made to the council survey in the two wards surveyed. In the latter survey, 8 per cent. of those responding backed plans for the use of the site for the proposed prison development. Some 76 per cent. of the Dagenham residents surveyed signalled support for the council's plans to use the site for housing, small industrial units and community facilities. The council are now seeking a meeting with the Mayor of London and senior executives of the London Development Agency to fast forward the regeneration of this site to benefit the local community.

James Brokenshire: I very much welcome this decision. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Beam Park West site lies on the border between our constituencies. He has rightly pointed out the opposition to the original plans for Beam Park West in his constituency. I presume that he is also aware of the opposition in places such as the Mardyke estate in South Hornchurch, which is also very proximate. Does he share my view that this decision puts the issue to rest and will hopefully allow the regeneration of this part of the Thames Gateway along the A1306, which is in need of investment, jobs and skills?

Jon Cruddas: I agree, and while I have some concerns about the Mayor's position, I do not seek to make any party political points across the Chamber tonight. The hon. Gentleman and I have a genuine shared interest, because local residents have felt dumped on during the prospective planning changes, and we need to offer some hope in terms of regeneration that can change the nature of the community more positively than people feared-as they made clear in various surveys of the proposals for the prison.
	I have several conclusions from our experience since April last year. First-and this is not said often enough in this place-I wish to put on record my appreciation for the work of the Department, the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and their respective officials. At every turn, questions have been answered, views have been respected, meetings have been organised and contributions welcomed in the broader discussion.
	I think that I can tentatively suggest that, in April, the process did not begin that well. The decision to build the prison on the site was announced at very short notice. Notwithstanding that, however, at every stage, the Department has respected the concerns of local people and listened courteously. That needs to be said. It was very much to the credit of the Secretary of State that he came down and walked the site, and most importantly listened to the concerns of local people. I would like to say thank you, on behalf of local people, for how the process has been handled, notwithstanding the slightly bumpy start. That is a great credit to the Department and the Government themselves. Early difficulties have been more than compensated for by the subsequent desire of the Department to involve and listen to local people.
	Briefly, I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the approach adopted by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. At every turn, it has sought to listen to local concerns and to articulate them to the Government in an informed and measured way. It refused to assume that the decision was a given, and sought to raise technical issues regarding, for example, planning, flooding, proximity to residents and how it related to future housing and infrastructural developments in south Dagenham and across the Thames Gateway, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) mentioned.
	The announcement of the site location, on 27 April, occurred on the day that a new council leader was appointed in the borough of Barking and Dagenham. Liam Smith, the council leader, was actually the councillor in the River ward in Dagenham, and became the leader a few hours after the announcement-actually without any knowledge of the decision in his own ward. It was a major test for the new leader, and I suggest that he has done a great job in providing a balanced, measured response and articulating the concerns of his ward residents and the wider community.
	The calm reporting of the local papers-the  Barking and Dagenham Post, the  Barking and Dagenham Recorder and the  East London Advertiser-also deserve to be acknowledged, as we reach the end of this process. Again, I want to record my thanks to them throughout these difficult months. Most importantly, however, I would like to thank all the local people who made a contribution to this debate. Thousands and thousands of local people have taken the trouble to contribute, to email, to respond to surveys, to phone and to sign petitions. The tenor of the contributions throughout has been mature and thoughtful. It is a credit to the people of Barking and Dagenham and the southern part of Havering that they have made their contributions in such a constructive form. These contributions have been a credit to the community, and I salute the people for the way they have come together to form a voice.
	Finally, however, I would like to register a note of concern that is very much alive in the community. On 10 June, the London Assembly called on the Mayor to oppose the plans for the prison. This was proposed unanimously. Yet we heard nothing from the Mayor. Indeed, I find it curious that the Secretary of State was prepared to meet local residents and discuss the issues and that the Major never entered into such discussions in my constituency. Moreover, following the Mayor's announcement we have heard nothing from him apart from grumbling about prison capacity-in effect, opposing the 12 February announcement. Indeed, the Mayor was in the borough last week and said nothing on the prison decision.
	The Beam Park West site is London Development Agency land controlled by the Mayor. We know that he met with Ministry of Justice officials prior to this site being designated and that other parties saw the relocation of the prison to the Beam Park West location as a local victory. Many people locally can only conclude that the Mayor actually wants to locate the prison on this site in Barking and Dagenham. Indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary said this week, in the Chamber, that the decision
	leaves a gaping hole in the Government's plans.-[ Official Report, 22 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 29.]
	The implication of that viewpoint, alongside the muteness of the Mayor since 12 February, is that this prison plan could be dusted down and re-presented depending on the election results in a few weeks' time. That is a real concern locally, and the next stage of our campaign is to develop alternative uses for the land for the benefit of the local community.
	Overall, I do not want that last point to detract from the real appreciation in the community for the recent Government decision. I personally respect the way the Department has handled this issue. Most importantly, I want to pay credit to my constituents for how they have engaged with this issue, the outcome of which is a tribute to local democracy and, more generally, public policy making in this country. Thank you very much.

Maria Eagle: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), who spoke in a typically modest way about his own contribution to this story. It can be characterised as a success on his part in representing the views of his constituents well. He set out the extent to which he consulted them, and the extent to which they responded to that consultation. So I would like to begin by congratulating him on securing the debate, and thanking him for his remarks.
	In particular, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my officials in the Department, who do a tough job, and do it well. They have to face such matters day in, day out, in different parts of the nation, while seeking suitable sites for our prison developments. It is not always an easy job to have to face various opinions expressed by people who might or might not want a prison located somewhere near them, but it is a job that my officials do very well, and with great professionalism. I therefore add my thanks to those that my hon. Friend has put on the record for the professional job that my officials do.
	It is certainly correct to say that Adjournment debates rarely, if ever, lead to enormous shifts in policy, and it must be said that my hon. Friend's suspicion that this debate might not lead to the change in policy is probably correct. However, it is certainly the case that an Adjournment debate can be the final straw in getting points across-in this case that has happened as part of a campaign during which he has sought to represent the views of his constituents-and getting them across in such a way that the Department can hear them, as he has acknowledged has happened.
	On 27 April 2009 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor announced plans to build five 1,500-place prisons, as part of a programme to increase prison capacity to 96,000 places by 2014. Those prisons will be safe, secure and effective places-the prison that we were considering at Beam Park West would have been category B-that can help prisoners to deal with their offending and develop the work, education and life skills, which they may have been missing, that they need to turn their lives around. My right hon. Friend also announced that our Department was working to secure sites for the first two of those prisons-one at Runwell, in the borough of Chelmsford in Essex, and one at Beam Park West, in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.
	Those sites were chosen not out of convenience, or in an attempt to cause trouble for the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) or my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham. We try to build prisons so that prisoners can serve their sentences closer to their home areas. There is no doubt that there is a dearth of prison places in and around London, so we need sites in the area-suitable sites, of course-on which to build more places and ensure that offenders from in or around London have a chance to serve their sentence in a prison closer to home. We know that ensuring that capacity increases the chances that those serving sentences of imprisonment will be more able and more likely to reintegrate successfully into society, put their offending behind, and learn to live law-abiding and useful lives when they come out. That is why we are searching in and around London for sites for prisons.
	However, as the announcement of 12 February 2010 has shown, there is nothing to say that we have fixed views about the particular sites that we investigate. It is perfectly normal for us to investigate a site, declare an intention to build on it and then find that it is not suitable for various reasons, or that other issues have led us to re-evaluate our initial interest.
	The Beam Park West site was originally identified following a site search exercise in the London area, which initially found it to be an appropriate location for the development of one of our 1,500-place prisons. We subsequently undertook some due diligence work on the site, including environmental investigation work. That work demonstrated that the flood risk on the site was higher than had previously been thought, and indicated that the required mitigation was likely to be more extensive and costly than was originally envisaged. That also presented a planning risk for the site, along with other factors, such as the allocation of the site for housing in the emerging local development plan.
	We have also listened to the views expressed by local residents since our interest in the site was announced, although we were yet to conduct a full public consultation into the proposals. I might add that it is a bit difficult to see how we could have conducted a more comprehensive consultation on the proposals than my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham instigated himself. We should thank him for his efforts in that regard, because he has enabled us fully to understand the local concerns without having to conduct our own consultations.
	In the light of all these considerations, the decision was taken not to proceed with the site at Beam Park West. In October last year we announced that we would begin a new site search exercise for further sites in the priority areas of London, north Wales, the north-west and west Yorkshire, with the purpose of identifying sites on which to build new prisons closer to the homes of the offenders we expect to serve their sentences in them.
	As I said, there is a significant shortfall of prison places in London, and it therefore remains very much a priority area for new prison places. There are currently around 11,400 more prisoners from London than places available in the capital, and the most recent population projections show that the numbers of prisoners from London could increase further by mid-2015. In the light of that, we are still looking for good suitable sites in and around London. Locating new prisons in the greatest areas of need will allow us to keep prisoners closer to their home areas. This will help to ensure that important family ties and other links with local communities can be maintained, which will assist with prisoner rehabilitation.
	Work on identifying sites in or near the key search areas is under way, and I expect to be able to announce a shortlist of suitable sites in the summer. I want to make it clear to all hon. Members that we are committed to being as open and transparent as possible about these sites. I hope it will be possible for any other hon. Member, at the relevant time, if they have reason to discuss these matters with us when we identify further sites, to report the same experience as my hon. Friend has conveyed to the House today, of our openness and transparency.
	Once a site has been identified, consultation with local MPs, local authorities and residents will be undertaken in order to achieve the most open and transparent process possible. I know that an announcement that we are seeking to build a prison in a particular place is not always popular, although it can be more popular in some places than in others. There is variation in the response that we receive. Once consultation has been concluded, and all the views have been taken into account and the due diligence has been done, if development is considered to be appropriate, we will seek to acquire that site with an appropriate planning consent, and to build the prison. The Government remain committed to providing more prison places to ensure that the most dangerous, serious and persistent offenders are locked up, and we are still on track to provide 96,000 places by 2014.
	I am happy to be able to respond to my hon. Friend's debate this evening by saying that in my experience as Minister for prisons, rarely has a campaign been so effective and totally successful in what appears to me to have been quite a short time-although it must have appeared to him to be an age. I shall finish by congratulating him on that effort, and by saying that his input has been valuable in conveying to us the views of his constituents and the local stakeholders in the area. We thank him for that, and we will continue to be open and transparent about our intentions in respect of particular sites, which we are still seeking.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.